In message , at 09:53:59 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:
Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

People's circumstances change. Even Concorde pilots eventually get laid
off. Although he could always get one of Norman's bikes and live in a
bedsit if he can't sell his house in Surrey.

And if you are a divorcee with two kids (that you used to be able to
afford), and marry another divorcee with two kids (that they used to
able to afford), which of them do you expect to go hungry?

Well that you can't predict. I was refering to people who plan a family
without being able to afford to have children from the start other than
via benefits. There are 7 billion people on this rock and over 60 million
on this little island. Effectively paying people in kind to have kids is
bordering on the criminal IMO.

How would fix that? Have people have to fill in something like a
mortgage application form before they are allowed to have kids, to see
if they can afford it? Or you could just choose the ones with blue eyes
and blond hair.
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:30:21 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day
people fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not
to get much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't
have them.

Kids can arrive unplanned, even with what should be the right precautions
taken.

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

Whilst I don't accept that nutty religious types should force their views
onto me, I do respect their right to hold them and ISTM that a belief that
abortion is fundamentally wrong is a reasonable view to hold

tim

In message , d
writes

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

Being unable to afford the child is not grounds for a legal abortion in
the UK.

--
Paul Terry

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:41:46 +0100
"tim...." wrote:
Whilst I don't accept that nutty religious types should force their views
onto me, I do respect their right to hold them and ISTM that a belief that
abortion is fundamentally wrong is a reasonable view to hold

They can hold whatever views they like but it doesn't mean they should
have subsidised kids because they refuse methods to prevent having them.

B2003

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:32:37 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Well that you can't predict. I was refering to people who plan a family
without being able to afford to have children from the start other than
via benefits. There are 7 billion people on this rock and over 60 million
on this little island. Effectively paying people in kind to have kids is
bordering on the criminal IMO.

How would fix that? Have people have to fill in something like a
mortgage application form before they are allowed to have kids, to see
if they can afford it? Or you could just choose the ones with blue eyes
and blond hair.

How about they check their bank accounts and payslips and work from there.
Its not rocket science. If they have them and can't afford them then tough.
They'll have to give up the Sky+ and fags won't they.

B2003

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:45:27 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , d
writes

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

Being unable to afford the child is not grounds for a legal abortion in
the UK.

You don't need any grounds, you just make an appointment. What year are you
living in?

B2003

In message , at 12:52:47 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:
How would fix that? Have people have to fill in something like a
mortgage application form before they are allowed to have kids, to see
if they can afford it? Or you could just choose the ones with blue eyes
and blond hair.

How about they check their bank accounts and payslips and work from there.
Its not rocket science. If they have them and can't afford them then tough.
They'll have to give up the Sky+ and fags won't they.

But if they don't (give up those things) and the kids starve, are you
happy about that?
--
Roland Perry

In message , d
writes

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:45:27 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:

Being unable to afford the child is not grounds for a legal abortion in
the UK.

You don't need any grounds, you just make an appointment.

http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/Womens...rtion_law.aspx

"UK abortion law. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must
give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would
present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her
existing children. However, the 1967 Act does not extend to Northern
Ireland, where abortion is still illegal. "

You can read the act for yourself here (note the four conditions in
section 1):
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1181037

What year are you living in?

In a year in which people don't mind parading their ignorance in public,
it would seem.

--
Paul Terry

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:29:58 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
"UK abortion law. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must
give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would
present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her
existing children. However, the 1967 Act does not extend to Northern
Ireland, where abortion is still illegal. "

Impressive wording, the real world however is another matter.

You can read the act for yourself here (note the four conditions in
section 1):
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1181037

What year are you living in?

In a year in which people don't mind parading their ignorance in public,
it would seem.

Says someone who seems think cutting and pasting off a website makes him
knowledgable on a subject.

If a woman wants an abortion in this country she can get one whatever the
reason. I know what I'm talking about in this matter but you believe what
you like.

B2003

In message , d
writes

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:29:58 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
"UK abortion law. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must
give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would
present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her
existing children. However, the 1967 Act does not extend to Northern
Ireland, where abortion is still illegal. "

Impressive wording, the real world however is another matter.

It is the law of the land. Anything is possible if you choose to break
the law, of course. Are you now suggesting that parents who cannot
afford children should have illegal abortions?

Says someone who seems think cutting and pasting off a website makes him
knowledgable on a subject.

Not at all. The whole point of the references to the UK's leading
authority on the matter and the 1967 Act itself were to enable you to
read the law for yourself and thus become better informed (a forlorn
hope, I know).

If a woman wants an abortion in this country she can get one whatever the
reason.

I said LEGAL abortion, as you very well know.

I know what I'm talking about in this matter

That would be a first ...
--
Paul Terry