Seriously, in this country, having kids is just excessive, don't you think?
Reproduction's a kind of rather nasty disease, a disease only contracted by the intellectually (and financially) challenged. Foetuses are regarded as aggressors, babies as accessories, infants and children things to turn into government educated products, proto-adolescents and adolescents as problems.
And woe betide anyone who might actually be fortunate enough to have more than the replacement number! Tsk tsk!
If you have kids young, when you're biologically more able to, it's just bad taste, if not wrong, because for goodness sake, why aren't you out there getting taxed, having a good time? Where -and what- is your contribution to society? How can you possibly afford it? If you are irresponsible enough to have kids young, you aren't expected to look after your own children because the powers that be would much rather you delegate your responsibility, preferably to a child minder or nursery, because then you can go out to work to pay tax, and cover the cost of the childcare.
One salary, as we all know, just isn't always enough. God forbid you should need some state benefits, or if for example, you've been naughty enough to be a lone parent, even worse! A young lone parent? Didn't you listen to the advice in the abortion clinic? What were you thinking?
As I understand it from reading the liberal media, if you're middle class with two incomes, over thirty five and read a broadsheet, think Ricky Gervaise (post The Office) is funny and possibly need IVF for whatever reason, you're probably ok to breed.
And if you're a drug addict? Take the cash, have the snip. What right do you possibly have to the hope of a clean life and a family? Do the right eugenic thing, take the cash. It'll set you up for the next score.
As I understand it, in this country we're heading for the weirdest age imbalance in history with regard to retireds vs young. Can't think why that could possibly be, can you?
No comments:
Post a Comment