Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Aren't virtually all forms of menstruation pain also solvable by taking hormonal contraceptives?

Maybe there's some exceptional cases where it doesn't work, but those are likely very few.

The only likely reason why they might not is because the person couldn't afford it for whatever reason, and I don't know the state of Italian healthcare.

I suppose religion might also be a reason, but I find that to be hard to defend because pain.

[Helgoland]

Heh, crazy as it sounds, with that Italian law, it would be a feminist thing to do, to argue that men should earn more than women, to prevent discrimination on the career market (it actually already is, and not just in Italy, if you consider pregnancy leave).

Or just give men the same days off, so they can take care of their partners :3

[TempAcc]

Butt touching time is very therapeutic

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I suppose religion might also be a reason, but I find that to be hard to defend because pain.

Also because the only religion of note in Italy is Catholicism, and I'm fairly certain that the RCC permits use of hormonal contraceptives if it's to treat another condition.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Last week in the UK, a law came into place that any families with over two children can't claim benefits (welfare to Americans) for over those two kids. It includes legacy provisions (I think) so if you've had two kids before this you can still carry on claiming benefits. For non-Brits, there were a number of families in the UK who were getting thousands of pounds per month in child tax benefit despite never working in their lives (and the likelihood of it being their children will never work either).

Unfortunately, there is a "rape clause" which means that if you are raped and have a child as a result then you can claim benefits for that child. For some reason, people are saying that this is "degrading and inhuman" (I don't understand how, but whatever), even though you don't have to report it as a rape to the police or name the person.

Also, these are the people who were complaining weeks ago that a rape victim should not have to pay for any children resulting from it so now they've got what they want they... Complain that it shouldn't be like that? I don't understand.

I agree it should be scrapped, mostly because the number of "rape children" is gonna go through the roof in the UK in the next few years, as people see another avenue to claim even more benefits.

[martinuzz]

That's a bad idea. I mean, it makes sense to want to stimulate having fewer children, in this overpopulated world, but by cutting benefits, you're hurting the children.

They should adopt my idea for that instead: Child-dependant retirement. You know, in all of the EU, people are grumbling about retirement age bing upped, and having to work until they are 67 or longer?

My proposal: If you have no children, you get 2 years early (government funded) retirement, so you can go work in your garden and travel the world. If you have 1 child, you get 1 year early retirement. If you have 2 children, you get normal retirement age. For every child after the second, you will have to work 2 years longer before you are allowed to retire. So if you have 10 children, be prepared to work until you're 80.

This idea doe not get children into trouble because parents cannot afford to raise them, like with the dumb UK idea.

[Strife26]

How does the proposed system count children who pass before their parents?

[martinuzz]

You mean, does having a 'replacement child' count as +1 or 0?

[Shub-Nullgurath]

That's a bad idea. I mean, it makes sense to want to stimulate having fewer children, in this overpopulated world, but by cutting benefits, you're hurting the children.

They should adopt my idea for that instead: Child-dependant retirement. You know, in all of the EU, people are grumbling about retirement age bing upped, and having to work until they are 67 or longer?

My proposal: If you have no children, you get 2 years early (government funded) retirement, so you can go work in your garden and travel the world. If you have 1 child, you get 1 year early retirement. If you have 2 children, you get normal retirement age. For every child after the second, you will have to work 2 years longer before you are allowed to retire. So if you have 10 children, be prepared to work until you're 80.

This idea doe not get children into trouble because parents cannot afford to raise them, like with the dumb UK idea.

The sad reality of it is that the benefits don't really go to the kids, or at least not to clothes and food for the kids. They get used for expensive TVs, holidays, brand new IPhones etc etc. And then the people have the audacity to complain that the government doesn't give them enough money to feed their kids. These are people that don't pay their rent themselves (and, often, don't pay rent at all since they take the money off the government and never give it to their landlord) so they don't even have that expense.

The second problem is that the people who have over about 4 children probably don't work and will never work. This will not harm them at all, it will only harm families who actually do work and therefore don't claim benefits.

[scriver]

That's a bad idea. I mean, it makes sense to want to stimulate having fewer children, in this overpopulated world, but by cutting benefits, you're hurting the children.

They should adopt my idea for that instead: Child-dependant retirement. You know, in all of the EU, people are grumbling about retirement age bing upped, and having to work until they are 67 or longer?

My proposal: If you have no children, you get 2 years early (government funded) retirement, so you can go work in your garden and travel the world. If you have 1 child, you get 1 year early retirement. If you have 2 children, you get normal retirement age. For every child after the second, you will have to work 2 years longer before you are allowed to retire. So if you have 10 children, be prepared to work until you're 80.

This idea doe not get children into trouble because parents cannot afford to raise them, like with the dumb UK idea.

This seems to be punishing the wrong people. Rather than penalise the people the people who chose to sacrifice their time, money, and health to participate in the continuation of our society it should be the people who selfishly chose to give no shits about that "our future" nonsense and decided that other people's children should have to support them when they grow old. I'd say the latter has earned a good +10 or +20 years before retirement.

[hector13]

That's a bad idea. I mean, it makes sense to want to stimulate having fewer children, in this overpopulated world, but by cutting benefits, you're hurting the children.

They should adopt my idea for that instead: Child-dependant retirement. You know, in all of the EU, people are grumbling about retirement age bing upped, and having to work until they are 67 or longer?

My proposal: If you have no children, you get 2 years early (government funded) retirement, so you can go work in your garden and travel the world. If you have 1 child, you get 1 year early retirement. If you have 2 children, you get normal retirement age. For every child after the second, you will have to work 2 years longer before you are allowed to retire. So if you have 10 children, be prepared to work until you're 80.

This idea doe not get children into trouble because parents cannot afford to raise them, like with the dumb UK idea.

The sad reality of it is that the benefits don't really go to the kids, or at least not to clothes and food for the kids. They get used for expensive TVs, holidays, brand new IPhones etc etc. And then the people have the audacity to complain that the government doesn't give them enough money to feed their kids. These are people that don't pay their rent themselves (and, often, don't pay rent at all since they take the money off the government and never give it to their landlord) so they don't even have that expense.

The second problem is that the people who have over about 4 children probably don't work and will never work. This will not harm them at all, it will only harm families who actually do work and therefore don't claim benefits.

Uh... citation needed?

What evidence do you have that child benefits are going on expensive tvs et al? That the people who are doing this - and not people who actually need the benefit to feed their children - are then complaining benefits don't cover the costs they're meant for?

That housing benefit is being kept and not sent to the landlord? And then, of course, that the landlord is not then evicting said people.

Then that people with lots of kids don't work. And that families that do work don't claim benefits.

I think that about covers it.

I'll tell you why the rape clause is demeaning later when I have more time.

[Dorsidwarf]

The problem in the UK is that a lot of large poor working families rely heavily on them.

But there are also an increasing (but still relatively small) number of families who use it like free $$$, neglect (or dont actually have) the kids, and buy expensive stuff. The conservatives like to focus on this group because its outrageous and shameful that they often get away with it for so long, which gives them the public support necessary to carry out their actual objectives: cutting welfare for everyone, even the workers.

Hate £? vote Cutservative. A government that spends no money will surely be rolling in the dough.

[hector13]

You missed an n in there, min. Hohohohoho /dehumanize everyone you disagree with

[ChairmanPoo]

I dont want to retire but I dont want to have 10 children either. What do?

[smjjames]

You missed an n in there, min. Hohohohoho /dehumanize everyone you disagree with

Pretty sure he meant to spell it that way, still, lol.

Anyhoo, yeah, the problem that has to be solved (aside from the primary problem it's trying to solve) is 'how do you punish the ones misusing the benefits while not punishing those who don't misuse them'.