“Kenneth, education is provided free by the state; obviously paid by taxpayers. You cannot educate a person to deny emotions, but you can teach control”.

That’s exactly what I meant. It is evident that not enough is being done in this department.

“The welfare system is there to stay and so it should. What is not tolerable is that we are forking out E2M per day in social services alone. Let all those who really deserve it get it, but that is where one should draw the line. After all, just like taxation, generous welfare is a disincentive to work and adds no value”.

That’s precisely what I said in a more concise form. We’re in perfect agreement.

The welfare system is there to stay and so it should. What is not tolerable is that we are forking out E2M per day in social services alone. Let all those who really deserve it get it, but that is where one should draw the line. After all, just like taxation, generous welfare is a disincentive to work and adds no value.

“Daphne, you know more than I do that having children is driven by an emotional desire and emotions are powerful motivators”.

And that’s precisely what makes education of paramount importance. It is the welfare system that makes it possible for people to let their emotional desires go unchecked, while responsible people subsidise the irresponsible behaviour of others.

I’m not saying that we should do without a welfare system, but it is a well known fact that far too many people abuse the system.

And I’m not saying that people who can’t afford designer clothing shouldn’t have children. But certainly, people who can’t seem to make ends meet and would have spent all their income a week in advance of their next salary cheque, surely cannot afford to have loads of children – and shouldn’t expect the rest of us to pay for their irresponsible behaviour.

Daphne, you know more than I do that having children is driven by an emotional desire and emotions are powerful motivators. It is not just about not having children; that is crude, but making do with what you have while constantly aiming to achieve your optimal performance in life.

My father was a civil servant and my mother is a work-at-home mother. We were given the best education that my father could afford and got on with life. They were religous, so we were also made to be part of the church but we were taught the right values. I learnt that I couldn’t have certain toys or even designer wear but I was always dressed warm and also learnt not to be bitter about it and appreciated other things in life like reading and listening to music, passively and eventually joining a band. We all grew up and went our separate ways but we are grateful for what a lot we got out of the little there was.

The point of my ramble is that yes, life today requires a basic understanding of money to live (or survive, a matter of perception). Teaching children to appreciate the fact that life is about people not possessions holds much more water and this is where Caritas should be paying attention to not the financial aspects of modern day life. The rest comes and goes and will not accompany us beyond the grave.

Oh yeah I’ll put out an advert.

Silvio, that’s exactly the kind of mentality such a course would try to discourage. Children are not objects that adults have a right to, but persons.

Yes, people who cannot afford (financially, physically and mentally) to have any or more children should not bring them into this world – not through coercion, but because doing otherwise would be highly unethical.

People who bring into the world children they cannot afford would be treating them as objects they have a right to, and not as persons that come loaded with responsibilities for their welfare.

It is generally (and rightly so) considered cruel to bring into the household a pet one cannot afford to properly take care of. Why should it be any less in the case of bringing into the household a new human being?

if you feel so hard done by, get married Baxxter . . .

Excuse me for shouting, but this ignorance really gets me all worked up: THERE IS PRACTICALLY NOTHING THAT WE (MALTA) CAN DO TO INFLUENCE WORLD PRICES.

On the other hand, we can naturally decide to subsidise prices locally – but any discussion on subsidies that does not mention the costs thereof (i.e. increased taxes and/or decrease in services/subsidies) is an exercise in denial.

[Daphne – It’s got nothing to do with selective breeding. It’s about understanding that children are not dogs or canaries. And even with dogs and canaries, the message has long been out that you don’t first get one and then see how you’re going to look after it. Couples with reliable and decent incomes plan their children, largely because the mother generally works, they have school fees to take into account, and they have more bills and overheads all round. That’s not selective breeding. That’s common sense.]

Like you said I completely agree that one parent’s salary can’t or shouldn’t support an entire family, but two minimum wages should. I mean thats a sizable chunk of the population.

[Daphne – The report is not about two minimum wages supporting two adults and one child. It is about one minimum wage supporting two adults and two children. Yes, you can bring up one or two children on two minimum wages, but it’s going to be dire. And no, it’s not the majority of the population. Most moonlight.The grey economy is huge.]