Wrong thread, Craig. And back-to-topic girls :)

Gary has raised what would be called a 'wicked problem', asocial evil with few options; he has pointed to a real problem, with disastrous consequences for so many of the next generation, and the next ..... and the next.

How to require single women to use contraceptives, i.e. BEFORE they become pregnant ? Even single mothers, who know the consequences of not using contraceptives ? If they don't, and then get pregnant, what's to stop them having another child and claiming for it (baby bonus, fortnightly payments, concessions, etc.) well into the future ?

We can't go back to the days before the single parent benefit. We can't penalise innocent children by cutting, or reducing, benefits to their feckless mothers [Get stuck in on that one, girls: I said 'feckless']. It would not b possible to take babies from mothers by force - in fact, that's never really been lawful. 'Persuasion', yes, but not force.

So, what tov do ? Perhaps requiring a single mother, after her say, second child, to simultaneously undergo vocational training, so that, the more children she has, the more training courses she has had to enrol in. No, that won't work either: it's easy enough to swive your way through TAFE course after TAFE course.

Free child-care for single mothers while the mothers are studying or working part-time, with 'adjustment' to their benefits ? From, say, the age of three ? Yes, that might encourage single mothers to get pregnant again when the youngest is going on three.

I suppose a single mother could have a baby every three years, from 18 to 42 - that would be an extra nine kids growing up fatherless (except for the occasional visits), with a clapped-out mother into the bargain. Not much role modelling there, but it would equate to at least one extra social worker in the system. Later, one extra in the correctional services system. And if some of the nine kids are girls, more of the same next generation. And all for what ?

Wicked problems, indeed.

Joe

spindoc,

Why are you so outraged we took you up on your dare?

Referring to a fellow poster as "you are one sick bitch" in an effort to lure them into pressing the red cross - and then pouring on the belligerence when they do is really just hysterical nonsense.

"The likes of you and me won’t be paying anything of course, but our children and grandchildren will. So enjoy spending the inheritance of your own future generations in the name of ideology and living off their credit card."

How about we get real about who's reaping the lion's share - it ain't the poor people or their kiddies.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/a-taxing-tale-of-two-peak-bodies-20150101-12gcty.html

"In the investment world, the typical product disclaimer runs like this: "Past performance is no indication of future returns." The same might be said of government but if last year's performance is any indication, social welfare will be under siege this year while corporate welfare will proceed apace.

While the government has held firm against advances from the likes of Qantas and SPC Ardmona, who were chasing cash handouts (the former suddenly bounced back as oil prices dropped, and the latter received help from Victoria), it has not managed to bring a single meaningful reform to stem the flood of Australian company profits being transferred offshore via aggressive tax avoidance schemes.

The talk has been hot and heavy, the action measly.

Of its two major tax reforms, the abolition of the carbon tax and the abolition of the mining tax, the greatest beneficiaries are multinational mining companies, the great majority of whose shareholders reside overseas."

"The corporate tax rate in Australia is 30 per cent yet a host of multinationals – with income of billions of dollars a year – pay nothing near the statutory rate, and that is after transferring collectively billions of dollars in profit offshore with the likes of interest on loans to their foreign associates."

That last post was obviously on the wrong thread. It was meant to be on the "Black and white flag" topic.

I'd like to thank the people who took the time and trouble to answer my question about defining a good parent. As the answers showed, it's not as easy as it might seem!

The consensus seems to be that the obvious nurturing aspects are something of a given and that a more important facet is that of providing a framework for a life that may be well lived, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

However, that then opens the question of just what a well-lived life might look like. Is there any difference between a life well-lived from the POV of the person inhabiting that life and from the POV of those outside it? In other words, if I was to ask the kids in a condition of intergenerational poverty if they think they have a good life and a good family, would their answer be different to the answer that someone living a different life might give?

To some extent this is reflecting Squeers point about culture, but I think it goes a little deeper, since different people within the same culture, living what appears to be a similar life, might give different answers.

Since we have apparently agreed that poverty is not a determinant of a good life per se, what is?

For me, it's related to resilience, a sense of personal purpose and of personal capacity to achieve things one thinks worthwhile. It is, as Foxy says, knowing the right thing, but extended to being in a position to be able to do it. I suspect that many in poverty lack any sense of self-efficacy and having dealt with our bureaucracies I know that they are very good at producing learned helplessness in their clients.

We can do better, I think. Does anybody have any ideas about how?

Is Mise don't root, then the contraception won't fail, simple as that, grab a dildo, or have a wank, same excitement, no kids

Dear spindoc,

Your accusations are simply hysterics.

I actaually had not read any of your previous
posts or those of anyone else on this discussion.
I simply did not have the time - what I responded
to was your vile slur against Suse - which no matter
what the reason was abusive and has no place in any
discussion.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions
here - and your outbursts merely indicate that you
can dish it out but can't take it.

No likes or supports an illogical and abusive debater.

Foxy and others, please accept what writers may say, I always look forward to either the accolade or nastiness in reply, we are open to be critisiced here, we all have different opinions on any subject, that is why it is so interesting, we must accept things we do not like, even a slap in the face, O' dear how dare they say I am looney, accept it and get on writing, like all things in life we are going to change nothing, wars, rubbish throwers, graffiti artists, unwanted babies, babies in poverty etc, but we can put our two bob's worth of writing here, as to how we think it should be, right or wrong, thank goodness for that, being a straight forward writer and generally using words that are used daily, one hopes that writers are not offended by root, wank, dildo, penis, vagina, f.... If I am called a penis cranium so be it, it will not upset me. Even d..... h.......comes up as a profanity here but the equivalent penis cranium doesn't , same thing, different expression, so my I Pad is having a go at me, o' dear I am offended.