Posts by Sacha
-
The rest I loved (and +1 for the Eastes to hit the screen) but "the handicapped" is *so* last century, man.
-
Thank you, Martin. Never my intent to offend.
-
She has 8 - the last of whom are twins. Now, she and her husband are self employed. They bring in quite a lot of dosh. Imagine if he or she died. Imagine if their business turned to shit.
Jackie, I believe you're conflating supporting children who already exist with incentivising new ones. Of course the existing 8 children should be supported in that scenario. But does that mean automatic entitlement for a supported new 9th one? Especially if it's to make the surviving parent feel better.
How do you think other members of society might think about that proposition? Again, I'm talking about competing claims, not about whether there's a basic right to reproduce or about what makes a good parent.
-
You may be opposed to eugenics, but unfortunately, your arguments seem to suggest that you aren't.
Fascinating. I've said clearly why I'm interested in this.
I have no broader agenda to stop people breeding. I've not said anything about preventing it for either individuals or groups, only about the competing claims of others and the environment.
I did not come up with the idea of restricting family sizes; that was someone else.
I'm well aware of the stuff Gio has mentioned about the political tendency of any restriction to end up being of certain groups of people. I belong to one of them, fer chrissakes.
I know I'm not that fond of or versed in human rights framing. But where do the assumptions come from about other things I haven't said?
-
let's look after them more and better
I support decent tax-funded services for all children.
-
Can I point out that I didn't come up with a suggestion of funding 3 kids. I think there are more sensible ways to balance the competing rights and responsiblities, but I'm not inclined to discuss them now.
-
A practical one informed by history, Martin - in a context of people asserting an unfettered right. Large families used to make more sense for practical reasons, though the emotional logic around this is clearly persuasive too. Perhaps it's best if I just stay silent on this type of stuff from now on.
-
they're reasons such a process could never be implemented without injustice
As I acknowledged up front, and thank you for elaborating. However, it doesn't seem to provide a particularly convincing defense against the Lindsay Mitchells of this world, let alone those murmuring watchers of One News who aren't wedded to notions of human rights. Any pointers?
-
Gah. Perhaps I've assumed people know my broader beliefs including opposition to eugenics? Should never talk about kids or animals.
-
I know I haven't addressed the uneven distribution of the stereotyping, including poverty or possible cultural reasons for preferring large families. Do chip in.