Don't like, don't read. Simple.

Can't stop? A pity.

She's working very hard. Onher back.

She's a breeder.

John Fowles: If people are going to breed like rabbits, then they are going to die like rabbits.

Cormac McCarthy: The Road

This post features on the Left blog Kiwipolitico: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/20...

I've put the below comment up for author Lew to reply to:

The entire point is in the last paragraph Lew: the proper role of the State. That's what the piece is about. Why did you miss that?

But let's continue the Twitter debate, you never answered my question. Regarding unemployed mother of five on TV1 and unemployed mother of eight on TV3, I'll pay for their first kids, that's the safety net. But, why would a civilised society make me pay for children two through five, and two through eight. I have my own family to care for, and my own goals, my own interests and charities. So you convince me, Lew. Why am I to be forced and enslaved by the State to pay for irresponsibility on the scale of these two women?

How is this the 'civilised society', throwing thirteen children on the scrape heap of poverty?

And given Totalitarian Trev's one year ban of my posting on Red Alert, this is what I would wish to post to this nonsense thread of Grant Robertson: http://blog.labour.org.nz/inde...

Can someone ask unemployed mother of five on TV1 why she has five children when she couldn't afford to. Can someone ask unemployed mother of eight on TV3 why she has eight children when she couldn't even afford the first one.

I work too hard to pay for stupidity on this scale: why does the brute, and very stupid, State make me? This is way beyond irresponsible and into evil, both for me, other hardworking taxpayers, and for the children of these stupid women (who most likely, unfortunately, are going to repeat their mother's lives).

Let's see, unemployed mother of five on TV1 last night and the reporter never asked 'why do you have five children when you are so young and have no job'?

Now, mother of eight on TV 3 tonight and the reporter never asked why she has eight children and no job. Why?

I work too hard to pay for this stupidity.

Why are our MSM reporters so inane and irresponsible in their jobs?

Good. The 'family' on TV1 last night, per my last post below, is doing a lot of damage to Labour this morning, as it should be.

Set that end up as a private charity, Gregster, and I'd donate to it.

And, thanks to Peter Dunne, your donations would be fully tax deductible.

Labour's policy announcement on extending WFF was as irresponsible as it was ludicrous.

I don't know if anyone else caught the TV 1 coverage of it tonight, but it was accompanied by a piece about a couple who were both unemployed, with five children. I thought that was bad enough, but there was no way the mother was older than twenty, indeed I'd put her around eighteen, yet she had five children and her and her partner were unemployed. I suggest the one thing they'd cottoned onto was having children earned a pay cheque from the taxpayer, and that throwing money at them like the Labour policy today is just straight damned evil.

Again, my policy above, written satirically, would in actual fact do more to solve child 'poverty' than Labour's policy of more welfare to fix the problems of welfare.

Set that end up as a private charity, Gregster, and I'd donate to it.

"They still don't tax cigarettes enough."

They should slam a punitive tax on Janet's posts. Win - win.

if people will breed like rabbits, then they shall die like rabbits."

Very good idea. And make the tax significant or you don't get the baby out of the hospital. This will mean more home births with no birth certificates. And a higher death rate for infants. Maybe.

They still don't tax cigarettes enough. More more more. And grow hemp and legalize pot and tax it tax it tax it.

Sweden has such an alcoholic problem that liquor is prohibitively expensive.

Because my point, Burnsy, as you can tell from my final paragraph, is that the State should not be involved in decisions around either childbirth or abortions.

So, to be clear:

Should the State be involved in decisions around abortion: no.

Should abortions be legal: yes, of course.

I know! I'm on about abortion. Bear with me ....

What about taxing abortions?

There will be a hue and cry, obviously: E.g: abortions for the rich only, from the "Family Planning" Ass'n, The well funded (by tax payers) abortion industry and Sue Bradford etc, all founded on the protest that governments should not decide such important lifestyle choices as who has babies and who doesn't. The last of which I entirely agree with, whether it be via a subsidy or a tax, for therein lies my cunning plan.