Thalbermad v Ahinton -- Getting women pregnant, paternity issues

[ahinton]

Thanks Mr Darling for giving loads more money to single mums.

The poor things need it.

Thal, you are repeating yourself and Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the UK Exchequer is not a member of this forum so, for all that I may be someone's darling and am called Alistair, it's no use at all appealing to me with your repetitive sentiments, for whatever the Chancer of the Wotsit has done is, most fortunately, no fault or responsibility of mine.

A lady living down the road from me is a "single mum"; her husband has just been killed in service in Afghanistan. She is quite well off and has no need of the state benefits that she is NOT being offered; on her solicitor's advice but against her own better judgement, she went to enquire about her entitlements and found that she did indeed have some, but the manner in which she was treated by those who interrogated her was more than enough for her to wish to distance herself from the entire idea of sponging on the state to help look after her three now fatherless children; she's gone and taken a job, so that she can try to deal with this herself instead of messing around with these un-civil non-servants. She should not have had to do that. She is also fighting for some decent kind of financial redress to cover the financial losses brought about by the death in service of her husband. Not a pretty situation. Not typical either, I admit, but it's nevertheless a fact.

Best,

Alistair

[berrt]

Gone mad over here berrt.

Thal

Then - how can you credit them with pregnancy licences??
It would be a sheer nightmare of form-fillings/interrogations/home-inspections.

B.

[thalbergmad]

She should not have had to do that. She is also fighting for some decent kind of financial redress to cover the financial losses brought about by the death in service of her husband. Not a pretty situation. Not typical either, I admit, but it's nevertheless a fact.

Our criminals get better treatment than our soldiers and war widows in this Country.

Anyone that is really deserving always appears to get a hard time.

Thal

[ahinton]

Our criminals get better treatment than our soldiers and war widows in this Country.

Anyone that is really deserving always appears to get a hard time.

Have you ever thought of emigrating?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yes, Greenland sounds nice.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yes, Greenland sounds nice.

Yes, you've mentioned that green and pleasant land before; do make sure that you have a reliable broadband connection there, though, otherwise we'd not be able to hear from you - and that would never do!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Just had second thoughts, how about Wales?

Free prescriptions - Not available in England
Free hospital parking - Not available in England
Free toothbrushes for under 5's - Not available in England
NHS dental prices frozen - Not available in England, even if you could find a NHS Dentist.

Sounds great.

Thal

[ahinton]

Just had second thoughts, how about Wales?

Free prescriptions - Not available in England
Free hospital parking - Not available in England
Free toothbrushes for under 5's - Not available in England
NHS dental prices frozen - Not available in England, even if you could find a NHS Dentist.

Sounds great.

For the next five minutes, perhaps - but isn't this because the Welsh bleed your English dry in ensuring that they have these benefits at the English taxpayers' expense, as you observed before (in a not altogether different context) about the Scots on more than one occasion? Wouldn't that hit your conscience abit? Anyway, there's no such thing as a "free" lunch and, likewise, none of the above that you describe as "free" other than at point of sale; who pays for these things?

Best,

Alistair

[Essyne]

Most definately YES.

Women who want careers and a baby are greedy. You cannot have everything in life and sometimes, you have got to make a choice.

Thal

I COMPLETELY agree. When a woman chooses to have a baby, she is making a commitment to the child and must give up her "life" (as she knew it before) for the child. It's just a question of what matters more. I choose my career.

[pianochick93]

But she doesn't have to fully give it up. A child will only need a mothers full attention while he or she needs to be breastfed, but the mother may choose to go back to her career straight after that or wait say 'till the child has started school.
 Things are so expensive these days that a woman can't afford to stay home and have the husband the only one bringing in the money.

[ahinton]

But she doesn't have to fully give it up. A child will only need a mothers full attention while he or she needs to be breastfed, but the mother may choose to go back to her career straight after that or wait say 'till the child has started school.
 Things are so expensive these days that a woman can't afford to stay home and have the husband the only one bringing in the money.

I think that a child will need its mother's attention abit more than just on those occasions - and what about the attention of its father? - but otherwise I don't disagree with what you're saying here. When a parent's work is non-menial, it is also a part of them as people, therefore a part of what they are as parents; too much denial of this might risk the parents becoming less rounded.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

A child will only need a mothers full attention while he or she needs to be breastfed, but the mother may choose to go back to her career straight after that or wait say 'till the child has started school.
 Things are so expensive these days that a woman can't afford to stay home and have the husband the only one bringing in the money.

I think a child needs its mothers full attention longer than that. Dumping a kid in nursery all day is not a good thing. The 1st 5 years are extremely important and a child should be with its mother and not with some uninterested low paid carer.

Things are expensive these days, but the modern generation appears to have forgotten the words "go without".

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I COMPLETELY agree. When a woman chooses to have a baby, she is making a commitment to the child and must give up her "life" (as she knew it before) for the child. It's just a question of what matters more. I choose my career.

Well said that girl.

Thal

[pianochick93]

Alastair and Thal, I was more talking about a worst case scenario, like if a mother couldn't possibly afford to stay out of work longer than she had to.
If it was a perfect world a mother and father would spend lots of time with their children, educate them, moralise them, and help them grow in to mature adults. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world.

Children don't necessarily suffer from daycare either, unless there is a serious problem there with bullies or neglective carers. Daycare is a place where the children can make friends and learn to socialise, much like school.
I think a balance is needed, socialising with the children at daycare which mum or dad is at work, and when everyone gets home, good quality family time is spent together.

I went to daycare, and I must say that I didn't really like it. At school, OSHC, and childcare I was the odd one out. I could read better than anyone, and I preferred to read than to spend my time playing Donkey Kong on the nintendo. I think that if my parents had spent more time with me at home instead of arguing all the time, I would have enjoyed my childhood more.

Thal: The modern generation have indeed forgotten the words 'go without'. I believe that if children in the previous times could be happy with a few carved wodden toys, and on special occasion, maybe a box of toys made out of tin, then we should be happy now. All of those interactive things are great, but it should be the parents and other children who provide the majority of the interactivity, not the toys.

Alastair: The father's attention is important too, but this thread seems to be more focused on the womens' side of things. I think that the father not being a complete d*ck and spending the time with his family, remembering birthdays and the like, is pretty much essential for a family to function properly.

I am no way saying that children should just be dumped in daycare, I'm saying that if worst comes to worse, it is an available option. Until of course, daycare itself starts costing more per week than the family earns.

[thalbergmad]

I think a balance is needed, socialising with the children at daycare which mum or dad is at work, and when everyone gets home, good quality family time is spent together.

On of my friends (yes i do have one) reckons she gets to spend about 15 minutes a day quality time with her young boy. When she gets home from work, she either has too much housework to do, or she is too knackered to spend any time with him. She therefore gives him what he wants to eat and sits him in front of the telly

The boy is an ill disclipined brat and i am not surprised. This can hardly be an isolated case.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Hmm, Basil Brush is to be questioned over racist remarks made about Gipsies.

Should be interesting.

Thal

[ahinton]

Hmm, Basil Brush is to be questioned over racist remarks made about Gipsies.

Should be interesting.

A Brush with the law, one presumes; not as interesting as the one concerning Leslie Howard to which you drew our attention earlier and to which I've just responded (and, let's face it, you can't have Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies without gypsies, can you?!)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianochick93]

On of my friends (yes i do have one) reckons she gets to spend about 15 minutes a day quality time with her young boy. When she gets home from work, she either has too much housework to do, or she is too knackered to spend any time with him. She therefore gives him what he wants to eat and sits him in front of the telly

The boy is an ill disclipined brat and i am not surprised. This can hardly be an isolated case.

Thal

I think it is more important to spend time with your children and raise them to be kind people than to do the housework.

[Essyne]

I think it is more important to spend time with your children and raise them to be kind people than to do the housework.

But housework is one of those "imperfections" in our world, is it not?

[Essyne]

Our criminals get better treatment than our soldiers and war widows in this Country.

Anyone that is really deserving always appears to get a hard time.

Thal

I can relate. Here in the States, our prisoners eat T-bone steaks and have their own farms where they grow food, etc. for each prison. It's insane! Kill someone and, hey, you're all set w/ a zillion course meals! Death row's not looking so bad now, is it?!


 . . . 

[thalbergmad]

I think it is more important to spend time with your children and raise them to be kind people than to do the housework.

In a perfect world yes, but housework needs doing as you probably know.

Mothers would have more time to spend with their children if they did not work. If they cannot afford to have children without working, thats just tough.

Thal

[ahinton]

In a perfect world yes, but housework needs doing as you probably know.

Mothers would have more time to spend with their children if they did not work. If they cannot afford to have children without working, thats just tough.

As I said before, Thal, so "tough" that most women who took full note of your contentions here would have no children and then there would be no new generaation at all, because hardly anyone can afford this; plenty of people have already observed that, in the present UK economic climate, children are a luxury available only to those very few who can possibly afford them and, with the British pound continuing ever more rapidly to fall through the floor along with the American dollar (people are now selling dollars and buying just about every other currency except the British pound right now), that will become so much more true that there may never be another new generation of British children.

Best,

Alistair

[Essyne]

As I said before, Thal, so "tough" that most women who took full note of your contentions here would have no children and then there would be no new generaation at all, because hardly anyone can afford this; plenty of people have already observed that, in the present UK economic climate, children are a luxury available only to those very few who can possibly afford them and, with the British pound continuing ever more rapidly to fall through the floor along with the American dollar (people are now selling dollars and buying just about every other currency except the British pound right now), that will become so much more true that there may never be another new generation of British children.

eh . . . may be bad in the uk, but i think there's too much procreation over here - kids are just a tax write-off and a money-maker to the previously-mentioned "scum of society" - personally, i think a little sterilization's an order . . . 

okay okay . . .  no, but seriously, the argument here is whether or not a woman can have a career and a child - she can (obviously), but would you rather have a smaller generation of well-bred, THINKING people, Alistair, or a large pool of idoits? i'd take the quality myself.

EDIT: I meant that physically she can - ehhh.. i need to proof-read what I write

[Essyne]

haha - i spelled "idiots" incorrectly (INTENTIONAL!!! I SWEAR IT!!!  ) )

[wotgoplunk]

eh . . . may be bad in the uk, but i think there's too much procreation over here - kids are just a tax write-off and a money-maker to the previously-mentioned "scum of society" - personally, i think a little sterilization's an order . . . 

okay okay . . .  no, but seriously, the argument here is whether or not a woman can have a career and a child - she can (obviously), but would you rather have a smaller generation of well-bred, THINKING people, Alistair, or a large pool of idoits? i'd take the quality myself.

Rich people aren't always well-bred and "thinking".

And see, there's a fundamental flaw with that argument, and it's the same reason why we need immigration.

To do the jobs no one else wants.

If society's average IQ was 132, to pick a random example, who's going to want to be a garbageman? Or a truckdriver? Or any jobs that would put that intelligence to waste.

No one, and society would just fall apart. Also, intelligent people tend to argue more with each other, as demonstrated aptly by Pianostreet   

[pianochick93]

In a perfect world yes, but housework needs doing as you probably know.

Yes, but if you raise the child well, when they are old enough, they will help you with the housework. Also this thread is about the mothers, but I'm quite positive that it wouldn't kill the fathers to help with the housework.

Also, watgoplunk. Well said.

[Essyne]

Rich people aren't always well-bred and "thinking".

yeah - but nurturing your children @ a young age will give them a greater chance of BEING well-bred and "thinking" - it's not really the money, but the time invested - if you can invest time w/o the money, be my guest!!

No one, and society would just fall apart. Also, intelligent people tend to argue more with each other, as demonstrated aptly by Pianostreet

at least we have an outlet  

[wotgoplunk]

yeah - but nurturing your children @ a young age will give them a greater chance of BEING well-bred and "thinking" - it's not really the money, but the time invested - if you can invest time w/o the money, be my guest!!

Again, it all depends. It's massively difficult to determine when no one is given equal opportunity.

People with money tend to spend that money to keep their kids smart, making them wealthy. And we have yet another cycle.

So what if you were to take that money, and give it to someone poor? They then become richer and are able to have smarter children, who are more wealthy. 'Tis a win-win situation! 

[Essyne]

but then what would happen to the rich that you took all the money from? that hardly seems fair . . . (for them @ least- they worked hard to get it, y'know)

[wotgoplunk]

but then what would happen to the rich that you took all the money from? that hardly seems fair . . . (for them @ least- they worked hard to get it, y'know)

Well that's the thing. If we had some sort of system that ensured the poor only got slightly more, it would work.

Remember, the rich are at an advantage beforehand. So you're levelling the playing field, not giving an unfair advantage.

And not all rich people work hard to get it. And not all poor people didn't work hard to get it. We have to avoid generalisations. Plenty of rich people simply have money because their ancestors had it. Which was usually gotten by extortion of some kind.

[Essyne]

I propose abolishing the income tax and replacing it w/ a Fed. sales tax. Then, if the poor are having problems paying for their necessities, we will simply not tax them on things like food, etc. Then, the rich could pay big taxes on their fancy cars, etc., and the poor could save money to lessen the gap. But then @ least we're not just placing it in their hands and saying "here you go!".

I understand that there are less-than-fortunate circumstances (euphemistically speaking - if that's a word *going on 2 hours of sleep - my apologies*) and that things happen in life. But I also know that many people DO work hard to get the money that they earn - and by saying that taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor because the rich are at an advantage because of their ancestors/extortion you are also making a generalization.  (now i'm the pot calling the kettle black, huh  )

IDK - maybe it would work, maybe it's already been proven wrong somewhere in the world - - - but that's the good thing about having a bunch of honest, opinionated people from around the world in one forum, isn't it? @ least y'all will cover the faulty reasoning!