Brian

So you finally found someone who sort of agrees with you. That must have been someone feeling sorry for you on the eve of Christmas.

Putting your mandatory vasectomy proposal in the hands of the police "who keep a list of no-hopers - and from there to the psychologists" is further evidence that you are hopelessly out of touch. Do some reading Brian, then come back to us with a considered position.

It's simply not good enough to claim that "Of those to be psychologically assessed, determining who has not a clue about decent behaviour is not rocket science." The world is much the worse off for those who have put life determining decisions in the hands of police, psychologists and dangerous simpletons who think they can solve complex problems with mumbo-jumbo.

On your own evidence, sadly, under your immodest proposal you would have been castrated decades ago.

I confess not reading the article that is the subject of this commentary, but if Brian Holden indeed promotes such extreme government intervention as responding posters imply, then let me add my own disgust to these proceedings.

It is precisely such middleman meddlemania of a nanny state that has created as many social problems as it sought to resolve. Individual voters, taxpayers and beneficiaries seem to have somehow invited it to stand between every such individual, not just in matters of commerce or social welfare, but to regulate their every personal relationship and their very existence. Some wealth redistribution may have been desirable and even necessary, simply because redistribution of intelligence, capacity or even motivation, was less practical. But we seem to be getting carried away with this idea to such extents, that we now attempt to redistribute wealth within functioning atomic families to a point that under certain circumstances, tips it into dysfunctional status. What hope then, for extended families and communities, under similar funding and meddling models?

Churn baby, churn. Idiocracy indeed!

Brian, I think you are having a bit of clever play with ideas.. I have a number of problems with your article and agree with person who said 'yuk'...but having seen a couple who were drug addicts (one pregnant)and spaced out on a maternity ward, the nurses besides themselves with concern for the unborn and the social worker saying: there is nothing we can do until the child is seen to be abused...I do understand your zero tolerance approach. It's just not simple though...the dregs of society are not the only abusers. Ask the likes of ex-Public Prosecuter Patrick Powers.. scum at all levels.

But must say spot-on in the vasectomy area for the father abusers..your reply to Part-time parent.

"I realise that I have implied that men with self-control problems are a danger to their children. They are indirectly, as the real danger comes from the de facto who has stepped in after the natural father has done a runner" and "... determining who has not a clue about decent behaviour is not rocket science."

Sorry, but a wonderful line for someone who has suffered at from a 'serial runner' (two children that I know of), 'abuser' (by the way he has post-Grad. quals, but nonetheless, he is indecent to the core and I can't write here how he should be held to account, but vasectomy a good start.

I agree with Romany's proposal. I think there should be a life skills courses for youngsters.

Also instead of paying people $5,000 to have a baby, offer a couple of thousand to have birth prevention (like a tubal ligation) that can be reversed at some time when there's a conscious decision to have a family.

Baby bonuses should be paid, if at all, when the child is in school. That's when the expenses really start to mount up.