Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Child tax credits should be paid based upon education/skills watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Great uni

    Campus looks lovely all year round, much better than Freie Universität Berlin
    Just googled it, looks erm interesting
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    If the mother is that mentally damaged that she cant feed her child then the baby can have formulae given to it by a responsible adult. There is no issue here.




    You can live a perfectly happy life with any number of ailments. That is not the point and is indicative of our selfish generation- we should want the best for our children and do what is convenient to them not vice versa.



    If there was some sort of way to adequately police aspiring fathers consumption of substances harmful to his sperm I'd be open to it- ensuring a greater percentage of breastfeeding is one simple solution.



    No, but it would become a cultural norm over time. I guess there could be black market formulae but I think with the children involved should be enough to scare most parents out of entertaining that.




    Well your first point was my point so im not sure where you are going there.

    As for your second....I am sympathetic to Veganism but this attitude is nuts. So, because I kill and eat animals, there's no real differentiation if I kill and eat you?
    My point is, given that mental healthcare is pretty bad in the UK, what happens when you get doctors refusing to prescribe formula on the basis of mental health? This is a pretty different example, but look at Ireland and abortions refused on the legal but often frowned upon reason of mental health?

    Yes, we should - but without restricting freedom of choice for the mother/parents. There are obvious moral restrictions on this reasoning - for example leaving a young child unsupervised - but breast feeding is not one of them. Who are you - or the state - to tell women what they must do with their breasts? Similarly, to stop men from drinking/smoking etc.? And what qualifies as a harmful substance? For example, the medicine I'm on isn't the best for a foetus, and its use during pregnancy is closely monitored by the woman's ob/gyn or GP - as it's technically a harmful substance for my hypothetical child, would you have me sacrifice medicine that I need to decrease the slight risk imposed by that medicine? Where do you draw the line? It's easy for this to become a slippery slope. Anyway, the current rate of breast feeding in the UK is ~81% I believe (I might be wrong). That's pretty high.

    There would still be people with ****ty attitudes - look at those who are still opposed to interracial or gay marriage, despite the former having been legal and accepted for years. Of course the attitudes would be reduced, but they'd still be there. You don't wipe out attitudes just by making something the law, unfortunately.

    I was building on your point to say that people are, generally speaking, massively hypocritical.

    Well that of course depends on your opinion, doesn't it? I believe that, as we don't need meat to survive, we shouldn't be killing animals - I don't think we should kill animals for any reason except euthanasia. I believe non-human animals deserve much, much more respect than we as a species generally give them; even just speaking about farm animals, they have intelligence beyond what most people think, they have high emotional capacity, they have the capacity to suffer. I find it disgusting how we seem to have become a society that treats some animals as objects or commodities - factory farming is the most obvious example of this, as is dairy in the sense that we think it's okay to impregnate a cow and then take her baby away from her for our own gain, causing great emotional distress and something that would no doubt be a crime if done to a human mother, or the mass killing of male chicks in the egg industry simply because they are male. Non-human animals are not ours to use - we should be living alongside them. But there are other people who believe that animals are just walking burgers. It's pure opinion.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Just googled it, looks erm interesting
    It's very German, isn't it?

    I know I spend half my time in Birmingham, but I just cannot get used to a huge city the size of Berlin (tbf, I spend the other half of my time in the hilly countryside of east Lancashire )
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    It's very German, isn't it?

    I know I spend half my time in Birmingham, but I just cannot get used to a huge city the size of Berlin (tbf, I spend the other half of my time in the hilly countryside of east Lancashire )
    Looks somewhat cold but efficient

    Berlins huge compared to Brum, you're only there for the year though right? You'll be back in brum in no time
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Looks somewhat cold but efficient

    Berlins huge compared to Brum, you're only there for the year though right? You'll be back in brum in no time
    You have no idea how true that is

    Yeah, just until end of July. So looking forward to going home for a bit for Christmas!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    You have no idea how true that is

    Yeah, just until end of July. So looking forward to going home for a bit for Christmas!
    I like how chilled out our conversation is whilst your posts above are like some crazy debate! Never had you down as that opinionated.

    Keep it up .
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    I like how chilled out our conversation is whilst your posts above are like some crazy debate! Never had you down as that opinionated.

    Keep it up .
    I'm crazy opinionated, it's a bit embarrassing sometimes
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    I'm crazy opinionated, it's a bit embarrassing sometimes
    It's good, stick to your convictions
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Thing is, you make it a contentious issue by prescribing formula. What about doctors who refuse on the grounds that mental health isn't an issue that would prevent breast feeding (for example)? Plus, what about a woman's autonomy? It's like mandatory vaccinations - in principle I agree but I disagree with the idea of the authoritarian feel. There also needs to be societal change - while women feel uncomfortable, due to other people and their attitudes, breast feeding in public, it would be completely unfair - perhaps even more than that - to force women to do so. And also just showcasing human double standards yet again, women MUST breastfeed but we can steal a cow's baby, after inducing pregnancy ourselves, away from her so we can take her milk lmao nice
    There are many reasons why a mother may choose to bottle feed. Midwives do encourage and support women into breastfeeding, but some women don't want to. That is their choice.

    There are medical conditions that mean that a woman may be unable to breastfeed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    It's good, stick to your convictions
    Sometimes I think I should just drop it, then one of my friends goes on about how great bacon is and how they can't believe I don't eat it, and it's like take your lump of dead pig and leave me alone - for example
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It makes sense to encourage people who can support kids to have kids, and to discourage those who can't support kids to have them, it would cost more to give (more) money to those who don't need it as well as those who do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Sometimes I think I should just drop it, then one of my friends goes on about how great bacon is and how they can't believe I don't eat it, and it's like take your lump of dead pig and leave me alone - for example
    Haha. I've been both you're not missing much tbh. Only thing that made me a meat eater again was the lack of time i have to have 4 meals per day

    Weak excuse i know!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Haha. I've been both you're not missing much tbh. Only thing that made me a meat eater again was the lack of time i have to have 4 meals per day

    Weak excuse i know!
    Yeah, I went veggie when I was 10, don't miss it at all.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    My point is, given that mental healthcare is pretty bad in the UK, what happens when you get doctors refusing to prescribe formula on the basis of mental health? This is a pretty different example, but look at Ireland and abortions refused on the legal but often frowned upon reason of mental health?
    How come mothers have been able to cope without milk formulae for hundreds of years( yes excepting those who can't )? The Ireland matter is a religious argument- this one isn't.


    Yes, we should - but without restricting freedom of choice for the mother/parents. There are obvious moral restrictions on this reasoning - for example leaving a young child unsupervised - but breast feeding is not one of them. Who are you - or the state - to tell women what they must do with their breasts?
    Don't be so histrionic. Who are you to tell me my kid should be educated, not take drugs, or that I can't give my newborn baby a full body tattoo. Most research overwhelmingly supports the advantages of breastfeeding for both the mother and the child. Did you know breastfeeding helps combat post natal depression?

    Similarly, to stop men from drinking/smoking etc.? And what qualifies as a harmful substance? For example, the medicine I'm on isn't the best for a foetus, and its use during pregnancy is closely monitored by the woman's ob/gyn or GP - as it's technically a harmful substance for my hypothetical child, would you have me sacrifice medicine that I need to decrease the slight risk imposed by that medicine?
    If you wanted to have a child I think you should choose- obviously you'd be stupid to risk your health and if you wanted children you could adopt. Alas, in our self centred society we are taught that what we want is more important than what is good for our children and wider society.

    Where do you draw the line? It's easy for this to become a slippery slope. Anyway, the current rate of breast feeding in the UK is ~81% I believe (I might be wrong). That's pretty high.
    Meh it depends on the area http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...stfeeding.html

    There would still be people with ****ty attitudes - look at those who are still opposed to interracial or gay marriage, despite the former having been legal and accepted for years. Of course the attitudes would be reduced, but they'd still be there. You don't wipe out attitudes just by making something the law, unfortunately.

    I was building on your point to say that people are, generally speaking, massively hypocritical.

    Well that of course depends on your opinion, doesn't it? I believe that, as we don't need meat to survive, we shouldn't be killing animals - I don't think we should kill animals for any reason except euthanasia. I believe non-human animals deserve much, much more respect than we as a species generally give them; even just speaking about farm animals, they have intelligence beyond what most people think, they have high emotional capacity, they have the capacity to suffer. I find it disgusting how we seem to have become a society that treats some animals as objects or commodities - factory farming is the most obvious example of this, as is dairy in the sense that we think it's okay to impregnate a cow and then take her baby away from her for our own gain, causing great emotional distress and something that would no doubt be a crime if done to a human mother, or the mass killing of male chicks in the egg industry simply because they are male. Non-human animals are not ours to use - we should be living alongside them. But there are other people who believe that animals are just walking burgers. It's pure opinion.
    The argument for animal meat/rights is a very different argument and whilst I have some sympathy, that is a very different argument- although I'd support plans to tackle fast food and sugar which has been proven to be. Especially unhealthy.

    As for opinions with gay marriage and inter racial relationships again this is not applicable unless they start forcing people into having gay interracial relationship which will only happen in some right wing TSR users fantasy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    How come mothers have been able to cope without milk formulae for hundreds of years( yes excepting those who can't )? The Ireland matter is a religious argument- this one isn't.




    Don't be so histrionic. Who are you to tell me my kid should be educated, not take drugs, or that I can't give my newborn baby a full body tattoo. Most research overwhelmingly supports the advantages of breastfeeding for both the mother and the child. Did you know breastfeeding helps combat post natal depression?



    If you wanted to have a child I think you should choose- obviously you'd be stupid to risk your health and if you wanted children you could adopt. Alas, in our self centred society we are taught that what we want is more important than what is good for our children and wider society.



    Meh it depends on the area http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...stfeeding.html



    The argument for animal meat/rights is a very different argument and whilst I have some sympathy, that is a very different argument- although I'd support plans to tackle fast food and sugar which has been proven to be. Especially unhealthy.

    As for opinions with gay marriage and inter racial relationships again this is not applicable unless they start forcing people into having gay interracial relationship which will only happen in some right wing TSR users fantasy.
    We as a species coped without many things for many years - doesn't mean we shouldn't use them now... I know, but there is an overlap in that it's people trying to tell women what's best for them to do with their bodies, and valuing the child over them. Life is equal, not ranked.

    Like I said - with obvious moral exceptions. Yes, I did, due to the release of oxytocin (or the 'bonding hormone' - hugging for an extended period of time, sex with someone you have an emotional connection with, just as two examples, also release oxytocin. Without meaning to be snarky (I just can't think of another way to phrase this), have you ever experienced depression? Also, you're never gonna get people to do what you want just by shoving a law through if the majority doesn't support it. I'd hope the majority of people in this country would be against forcing women to breastfeed and instead support her right to choose what to do with her breasts/body and her child's diet, with input from her partner, and be against this 'you will do this' sort of ideology.

    As I said before, it's my belief that life is equal, not ranked. You should balance a risk to yourself against a potential risk to the child - if the risk is small, why not take it if it betters your quality of life? Statistically I'd be putting my hypothetical foetus at more risk by getting in a car and driving down the road than taking this particular medicine - does that mean I shouldn't drive, or even leave the house, for the duration of my pregnancy? Everything carries risk, it's whether the risk is worth taking or not.

    Yeah, mostly due to socioeconomic factors, e.g. new mothers needing to get back to work so not having time/capability to breastfeed etc. - which have more impact than breastfeeding.

    In my opinion, it's not. Like I said (sounding much like a broken record ) life is equal. So it's subjective. Imo non-human animals deserve the respect and protection human animals get. But that's my opinion.

    It is an applicable argument, as it was referring to changing attitudes within society - just because the majority have changed due to a change in legislation, doesn't mean all will. It's cultural, generational, and sometimes gender-based. That's another point, actually - surely the women who will be doing the breastfeeding should have more of a say in this than the men? It's like in America, when it was decided that Viagra should be covered on health insurance but the contraceptive pill shouldn't because it was only useful for one gender or some BS like that, or when a majority-male government rules against legal abortion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    We as a species coped without many things for many years - doesn't mean we shouldn't use them now... I know, but there is an overlap in that it's people trying to tell women what's best for them to do with their bodies, and valuing the child over them. Life is equal, not ranked.

    Like I said - with obvious moral exceptions. Yes, I did, due to the release of oxytocin (or the 'bonding hormone' - hugging for an extended period of time, sex with someone you have an emotional connection with, just as two examples, also release oxytocin. Without meaning to be snarky (I just can't think of another way to phrase this), have you ever experienced depression? Also, you're never gonna get people to do what you want just by shoving a law through if the majority doesn't support it. I'd hope the majority of people in this country would be against forcing women to breastfeed and instead support her right to choose what to do with her breasts/body and her child's diet, with input from her partner, and be against this 'you will do this' sort of ideology.

    As I said before, it's my belief that life is equal, not ranked. You should balance a risk to yourself against a potential risk to the child - if the risk is small, why not take it if it betters your quality of life? Statistically I'd be putting my hypothetical foetus at more risk by getting in a car and driving down the road than taking this particular medicine - does that mean I shouldn't drive, or even leave the house, for the duration of my pregnancy? Everything carries risk, it's whether the risk is worth taking or not.

    Yeah, mostly due to socioeconomic factors, e.g. new mothers needing to get back to work so not having time/capability to breastfeed etc. - which have more impact than breastfeeding.

    In my opinion, it's not. Like I said (sounding much like a broken record ) life is equal. So it's subjective. Imo non-human animals deserve the respect and protection human animals get. But that's my opinion.

    It is an applicable argument, as it was referring to changing attitudes within society - just because the majority have changed due to a change in legislation, doesn't mean all will. It's cultural, generational, and sometimes gender-based. That's another point, actually - surely the women who will be doing the breastfeeding should have more of a say in this than the men? It's like in America, when it was decided that Viagra should be covered on health insurance but the contraceptive pill shouldn't because it was only useful for one gender or some BS like that, or when a majority-male government rules against legal abortion.
    Where have I said that we are not born equal?,obviously there are going to be genetic differences regardless but I believe you have an ethical duty to give your child the best possible start in life and that breastfeeding forms an essential part of it and this duty supersedes the right of women to be free

    That brings me onto my next point- everyone is acting under some form of ideology regardless of whether they believe they are or not.

    As I used to work as a mental health nurse you can say that I have experience with depression both professionally and personally-I think a lot of depression occurs when we think we are acting freely but our reacting to forces not under our control.

    Your example again is not relevant as breast feeding is not a risk and with your car example you are not willingly going to have an accident whereas you are willingly choosing not to breast feed your child.

    As women used to be babies it is in their interest to support children being born into their full potential.

    I'd imagine the contraceptive pill was not approved as a religious matter which again has no bearing on the topic under discussion. (For the matter in an atheist)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Where have I said that we are not born equal?,obviously there are going to be genetic differences regardless but I believe you have an ethical duty to give your child the best possible start in life and that breastfeeding forms an essential part of it and this duty supersedes the right of women to be free

    That brings me onto my next point- everyone is acting under some form of ideology regardless of whether they believe they are or not.

    As I used to work as a mental health nurse you can say that I have experience with depression both professionally and personally-I think a lot of depression occurs when we think we are acting freely but our reacting to forces not under our control.

    Your example again is not relevant as breast feeding is not a risk and with your car example you are not willingly going to have an accident whereas you are willingly choosing not to breast feed your child.

    As women used to be babies it is in their interest to support children being born into their full potential.

    I'd imagine the contraceptive pill was not approved as a religious matter which again has no bearing on the topic under discussion. (For the matter in an atheist)
    You didn't, but by saying that you have the right to force women to do something they may not want to do, you're implying that the child is more important than the woman.

    So you know how difficult living with depression can be then? Sometimes I struggle to get out of bed - I can't imagine having post natal depression and trying to get up the will/energy/however you'd describe it to breastfeed when you can't even get up.

    My example was re: the relevance of risk. You said I should stop taking my medicine or adopt, but that's an emotional response when really if you look at the facts of it we do things that are much riskier every day.

    So you'd literally force 50% (roughly) of the population to do something and take away their free will because 'they used to be babies too'? What's next, forcing people into education they're not suited to (e.g. university instead of vocational) to better their chances in life? Ensuring everyone only undertake activities that are deemed safe enough to better a child's chances?

    No, the official reason was because it was a product that was gender-specific, or so I seem to recall. Not religious.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    You didn't, but by saying that you have the right to force women to do something they may not want to do, you're implying that the child is more important than the woman.

    So you know how difficult living with depression can be then? Sometimes I struggle to get out of bed - I can't imagine having post natal depression and trying to get up the will/energy/however you'd describe it to breastfeed when you can't even get up.

    My example was re: the relevance of risk. You said I should stop taking my medicine or adopt, but that's an emotional response when really if you look at the facts of it we do things that are much riskier every day.

    So you'd literally force 50% (roughly) of the population to do something and take away their free will because 'they used to be babies too'? What's next, forcing people into education they're not suited to (e.g. university instead of vocational) to better their chances in life? Ensuring everyone only undertake activities that are deemed safe enough to better a child's chances?

    No, the official reason was because it was a product that was gender-specific, or so I seem to recall. Not religious.
    I'm not implying that's what I'm actually saying- the child comes first, if you choose to have one. The child didn't have that choice.

    I don't know what your point is via depression- is formulae really going to make things better? You know they've actually got to find the energy to make the formulae.

    If you are choosing to have a baby despite real risks from your medication then that is a choice that you have made rather than an act of fate per we and this you are responsible.

    The argument over free will is an argument I don't want to get into for the moment- but we can both agree that babies do not possess free will and were they to have the choice and were rational beings they would choose breast.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm not implying that's what I'm actually saying- the child comes first, if you choose to have one.
    Nope. Life is equal. And given there are so so many factors involved in life success, like I've already said, the effect of breastfeeding is most likely negligible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Nope. Life is equal. And given there are so so many factors involved in life success, like I've already said, the effect of breastfeeding is most likely negligible.
    So instead of 'women and children first' it should be 'life is equal go for it'?

    There are indeed lots if factors but this one is within everyone's ability to control ( with some exceptions) and thus if they choose not to they are willingly choosing not to benefit their child.

    (I accidentally prematurely posted- my last post has been updated)
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 2, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.