Sterilise parents receiving government benefits, says Tory

Human population is exeding suportble levills. Lets sterlize the underpriviged. Let's stop any posibility of futur genrations being inflated by joos, blicks, mosliems, red indjuns, brown injuns - in fact, why start wit sterisation? Why not round this ppl up and get rid of dem b4 they get to be the majorty and starts dmanding their minimium human rites of survivle. Les ban welfare allttogether, let dem starv to deth and freese next winer, tha'll help.

[edit on 27/3/08 by hidatsa]

How about a more ethical solution to the problem.

Miss 'A' is 19y.o and has 4 kids 1-4 years old, and can't afford to work as the kids need full-time care and can't afford the childcare costs

Mrs 'B' is 68y.o. retired and claiming the minimum state pension and barely able to afford the costs of keeping the house warm during cold weather.

Solution...Mrs 'B' becomes a surrogate-grandparent-childminder, giving her worthwhile employment that subsidises her pension, whilst Miss 'A' is able to go to work and earn to supplement her welfare benefits, and is able to afford to pay at reduced-cost, adequate care for her kids whilst working

Two birds...one stone

Originally posted by hidatsa
Human population is exeding suportble levills. Lets sterlize the underpriviged. Let's stop any posibility of futur genrations being inflated by joos, blicks, mosliems, red indjuns, brown injuns - in fact, why start wit sterisation? Why not round this ppl up and get rid of dem b4 they get to be the majorty and starts dmanding their minimium human rites of survivle. Les ban welfare allttogether, let dem starv to deth and freese next winer, tha'll help.

[edit on 27/3/08 by hidatsa]

You are being sarcastic , right?
or do you realy think that is the answer

Yet another politician spouting utter rubbish in the hope that we think he is actually earning that second house and all it's contents that we pay for.
My wife was a single mum of three on benefits when we got together but as soon as the youngest started full time education she got her first of many jobs.
Not all mums/dads on benefits are sponging layabouts.

reply to post by citizen smith


Good plan!

Much better than the afore mentioned sterilisation. As long as it gets people off benefits and being productive, I'm all for it.

Originally posted by malcrTherefore in order to get £38,000 in Child Benefit you would need 3063 children!!!!!!!!!!

I think your maths is a little off, but I'm also crap at maths. However, I work it out that, assuming we're talking about £38,000pa and not in one lump sum, you wouldn't need anything like 3000 children. You could do it with 90. That's achievable, isn't it?

Let's (I start this sentence knowing I'm probably wasting my time, but press on ...) define entitlements. You're human, you're entitled to live. You have children, you're entitled to raise them. It doesn't matter if you're a drug addict or just promiscuous or if your religion requires it of you, each human being is entitled to its life. It's called humanitarianism. It's a bit egocentric, as it won't extend to any other species on the planet, but it's the way we are. The way we're supposed to be.

Now let's ask why there are people who want the poor to be exempt from this entitlement. Is it because, as they forge careers and earn more money, their taxes increase, even though the money raised is only being used to support those less fortunate than themselves? Actually, proportionately more is spent on supporting the elderly. Proportionately considerably more is divided between defense initiatives and armaments, even though the greater number of wars engaged in in the last decade or so have been originated by us. Looks as though defense is unnecessary, then. A proportionately large amount of our tax money goes in an inadequate roads and public transport system.

In fact, given the importance of people in the general scheme of things, surprisingly little is spent on keeping people alive. We are encouraged to start our own pension plans, our own private medical care programmes, to give charitably and to volunteer without expectation of reward. The government has passed us the buck in terms of social welfare, health and wellbeing. All very fine for those of us who can afford it. Of course, not everyone who can afford it accepts that they can afford it. Those who accept they can afford it don't necessarily accept any responsibility for doing it. The upshot is the poor and underprivileged, the marginalised and the infirm get moaned about by people with central heating and cars and warm winter clothes and annual golf club memberships.

Welfare benefits are a right. They are a minimum right. You have a child, you need to raise that child. The government rightly offers you a pathetically small amount of additional money with which to do that. Sterilise a family or give them a tenner? That's what this argument amounts to. It's not like it's some kind of reward, you know. It's just a little help. A family with twenty children will spend every penny the government gives them clothing those children, educating them, feeding them. It's not a lottery win, you know. It's a minimum subsistance-level payment.

To those who think this barbaric suggestion of sterilisation is a bloody fine idea, I say this: Get over it. Live with it, or change your attitude and the world that allows you to have that attitude.

To those who refuse to consider anything I've said (including this paragraph, probably) I'd like to say this: Too many years of prejudice to hack my way through before I can even find the reasoning part of your brain. But they won't hear me. Like I said at the start. Pprobably wasting my time.

reply to post by executioner


Indeed, they are not.

My own partner was a single mum on benefits prior to me meeting her. She was left in the lurch by her ex to fend for herself, yet she stayed in Uni and managed to pass with Honours. The problem she faced was the cost of childcare would essentially cripple any chance of her going to work.

Now, her son is about to start school, yet she is finding it hard to get the job she wants due to being out of work for 4 years.

The way the whole system and society is setup does not help those who want to work, yet is quite capable of enabling those who don't want to work to continue being spongers.

A wholesale reform is needed. As mentioned above, state provided childcare for pre-school kids is a must, an absolute must.

Originally posted by electriclollypop

Originally posted by hidatsa
Human population is exeding suportble levills. Lets sterlize the underpriviged. Let's stop any posibility of futur genrations being inflated by joos, blicks, mosliems, red indjuns, brown injuns - in fact, why start wit sterisation? Why not round this ppl up and get rid of dem b4 they get to be the majorty and starts dmanding their minimium human rites of survivle. Les ban welfare allttogether, let dem starv to deth and freese next winer, tha'll help.

[edit on 27/3/08 by hidatsa]

You are being sarcastic , right?
or do you realy think that is the answer

Isn't it scary to think that you can't tell if I'm being satirical or being serious? Isn't it scary to think that people living today, living on your street, in your town, your country, actually, really think this way? Forget your ferkin aliens. It's the ferkin humans that scare the ferk out of me.

Originally posted by palehorse23


This story comes out of England. But, I have also heard this idea brought up by folks here in the US. Personally I think the concept is a great one. I do not however believe it should be done after one child. I do feel however that people on subsidized income should be limited on how many children they have. When I see people abusing the system, it really brings me down as I am one of those putting into the system. And when it comes to tax time, these folks get a crapload of money back. While, at least this year, I have had to pay.
So while many people say this is not moral or legal, if you think about it, it may help alleviate some of the abuse to the government benefits. This is abuse that is caused by citizens getting the handouts. Actually perped by those that complain our government sucks and doesn't do enough to help this country. That really ticks me off.
I certainly do not think people like the counselor should have to resign over an idea such as this. It should at least be talked about if nothing else.
When they compare it to Nazi practices that gets under my skin also. If the abuse of the systems did not occur on such a large level, no one would have to think this way. And it is not a measure to control population, it is a measure to ensure that people get off of their bets and get a job when they want a large family.
Any thoughts?

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Believe me my friend, I understand what you are trying to say here but you are truly missing a vital moral point. Life, as we all well know, is unpredictable at various points. Now, take my family for example. I am a hard working man raising 3 wonderful children. Before I had 3 children that have been a complete blessing I had only 1. About 2 months before he was born I lost my job. It was bad timing as there simply was not work to be found. We had to go on state assistance because my wife could not work either due to pregnancy complications. We had to go into the system and live off of this type of support for much longer than I would have wanted.

Granted, my mind set is probably much different than those that abuse the system as you state. I didn't want to be there. Now, just imagine if we were forced to be starilized because of this? Boom. There goes our 2 beautiful girls. Two bright lights that bless most that come in contact with them. Now, take into account also that my son was born 3 months early. We get sterilized and he develops complications and passes on. Our God given right to procreate has now been completely robbed from us.

Granted, there are extreme cases where people just depend on and depend on the state. They don't work or look for work. They have 7, 8, and more kids. Where is the failure? In the system or in the family?

Those are the extreme cases and unfortunately are more common than many think. However, I must say that I have also known MANY other single parent families with kids that are on the system that absolutely HATE being on the system. They wish they could get off. However, they find out quickly enough that if they get a job that there is just no way they can support a family. The costs of food, gas, utilities, etc. are just too great. It's getting to a point where it is almost too great for dual income famlies not on the system.

Now, these people don't want to be on the system but can't get off of it. What led to them being on the system in the first place? I have two friends that lost husbands to accidents. Okay, sterilize them. Wait! You say that they are different? Okay, what classifications do we create for sterilization?

If you don't know this ugly fact, our once great nation has already tried this. At the turn of the last century we tried to impose manditory sterilization on convicted felons and "ALL" of their offspring. On all people that fell below a certain intelligence level via their testing system.

Want to know something really screwed up? When I was 13 I was tested twice for IQ. The tests didn't make much sense to me. I fell below this standard in which the government had set forth. I would have been sterilized. I was considered mentally challenged. I'm just glad that I had a special teacher that recognized something else. They gave me a higher level IQ test and I passed it with flying colors. The previous tests weren't challenging enough and I just didn't get them.

You see the picture I am painting yet? How many bright people come from broken or state dependent homes? How many great stories are out there about the rags to riches stories of great people? That would all end and fairly quickly with your solution.

I understand the WHY in what you are saying. I just wonder if you have really thought it out.

Just my two or twenty cents.

Originally posted by hidatsa

Originally posted by electriclollypop

Originally posted by hidatsa
Human population is exeding suportble levills. Lets sterlize the underpriviged. Let's stop any posibility of futur genrations being inflated by joos, blicks, mosliems, red indjuns, brown injuns - in fact, why start wit sterisation? Why not round this ppl up and get rid of dem b4 they get to be the majorty and starts dmanding their minimium human rites of survivle. Les ban welfare allttogether, let dem starv to deth and freese next winer, tha'll help.

[edit on 27/3/08 by hidatsa]

You are being sarcastic , right?
or do you realy think that is the answer

Isn't it scary to think that you can't tell if I'm being satirical or being serious? Isn't it scary to think that people living today, living on your street, in your town, your country, actually, really think this way? Forget your ferkin aliens. It's the ferkin humans that scare the ferk out of me.

agreed.

I was so into reading replies , that i didnt realise who posted it

Originally posted by stumason
The way the whole system and society is setup does not help those who want to work, yet is quite capable of enabling those who don't want to work to continue being spongers.

A wholesale reform is needed. As mentioned above, state provided childcare for pre-school kids is a must, an absolute must.

As I mentioned earlier about giving our elder generation an active role in society, they are from the 'old school' of National Service, honouring your elders, discipline, and social responsibility.

They'd have the kids under their care, whilst employed as 'surrogate nans and grandads' well educated in social respect and pass-on the skills and knowledge that they gained from their many years.

All that would be needed is, as you said, to reform the welfare system to allow a higher proportion of earned part-time income to be disregarded before affecting both state-pension, and income-support benefit payments

[edit on 27-3-2008 by citizen smith]

Originally posted by citizen smith
Solution...Mrs 'B' becomes a surrogate-grandparent-childminder, giving her worthwhile employment that subsidises her pension, whilst Miss 'A' is able to go to work and earn to supplement her welfare benefits, and is able to afford to pay at reduced-cost, adequate care for her kids whilst working

Two birds...one stone

Hmmm

See, all this used to happen naturally when extended families lived close to each other and pensioners weren't put into retirement homes and people weren't being taxed to the hilt meaning both parents have to go out and earn a living. You'd have a whole family living on a street, looking out for each other.

Its a society problem. Its not one particular element, its a combination of them all.

Government thrives on negating the power of the family, because it enables state control - particularly socialist government.

"New Labour" has done more to damage the family unit during its tenure than any other government before it.

At least we've gotten into talking about practical options now, which is a good thing I think

Reasoned debate and discussion. This thread is a poster child for what ATS is about

reply to post by please_takemyrights


I 100% agree with this idea. Before we do it though, I think there are more pressing matters:

Corporate officers should be executed when any accounting anomalies are uncovered or malfeasance of any kind...

Public Officials should be executed if they attempt to live above the standard of the poorest person in their constituency...

and most importantly, instead of forbidding them to have kids they should be forced to sell their children into slavery or to be used as food as partial repayment of their debt to society...

Originally posted by neformore
all this used to happen naturally when extended families lived close to each other. You'd have a whole family living on a street, looking out for each other.

Actually, thats what you'll see on a lot of 'estates'...the family community pulling together to help one another. You'll have a cousin down the road, an auntie or two round the corner, and nan just 'up the way'

of course if you're not part of that community, you'll be looked upon as an outsider with predjudice and suspicion, just as the same predjucial comments have been levelled at these very people in some of the posts in this thread

Either sterilize them or find a most economic way of dealing with them, thats why America is going down the crapper, too many people abusing benefits

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
Either sterilize them or find a most economic way of dealing with them, thats why America is going down the crapper, too many people abusing benefits

I could only accept that statement if by people abusing benefits you are referring to:

1) Corporate moguls getting hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for implementing new and creative ways to fleece the people's economy;

2) Government administrators and leaders reaping lifetime rewards for seeing to it that those same corporate moguls are never held accountable for raping people's retirement funds, thus ensuring they must work until they are sick and dying of exhaustion thus ensuring a never-end flow of public funded cash into a health care system that turns disease and death into profit;

3) Investment bankers, insurance conglomerates and bloated higher educational institutions that create and perpetuate systems whereby only those already accepted by the elite never have to produce anything for society while they leech wealth from systems designed to help people succeed in life;

4) 'Small town' high income communities that suck up every local resource available to maintain a healthy and safe community for themselves while the less worthy (i.e the middle and lower classes) deal with the crime and abuse (what the hell, it's there own fault for being poor - the dumb b@@stards).

5) Media and Information corporations that protect and promote archaic ownership models ensuring no innovation and no opportunity for change from the status quo.

I have to ask, have you ever been homeless? Hungry? Ever faced the possibility of economic desolation? Do you really think that the JP Morgan's, Rockerfellers, and Rotschild's of this world actually 'EARNED' their wealth?

These people - all by themselves, in an act of supreme charity, could single-handedly eliminate most of the hunger and suffering due to economic strife - but why should they right? How silly would that be? You think that the 2 or 3 million poor people are the cause of the economic problems in this country? Sounds like you must be joking - please tell me you're weren't being serious.

I won't debate such things with the British members because I have no stake in their country, but I have seen the truth about the ultra-rich here. THEY are the cause of the problem, THEY are the one's who are addicted to wealth and can't envision a world where they are not the economically all-powerful - and to hell with the rest of us.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by dariousg

You see the picture I am painting yet? How many bright people come from broken or state dependent homes? How many great stories are out there about the rags to riches stories of great people? That would all end and fairly quickly with your solution.

IQ tests have nothing to do with it. There are users and abusers. I didn't say test these abusers or users. It can be clearly seen when a person is abusing the system. The way people act and carry themselves tells a lot about them. How can you justify the fact that people just keep popping out kids. Then these kids can't be taken care of in the proper manner. Just because they are on the system doesn't mean the money given to them is being used correctly. These are the cases I am talking about. When instances like these come up, sterilization could be an option. Never did I say that all people on the system should be sterilized. It obviously has to be shown that they are abusing the benefits before this could be done. I am not for just forcing anyone on the system to be sterilized. the benefits are there for assistance, not for abuse. If people truly need assistance then they should get it. But once it is shown that they are continually bearing kids just to increase money, then a wake up call may need to be put into place.
I love how statements get twisted. Read my post about the case in my town. I feel that case is a justifiable one for the woman to not be allowed to have children anymore. And besides, there are ways to sterilize without it being permanent. Fallopian tube rings for instance. This is a plastic ring inserted into the fallopian tube that blocks sperm from reaching the egg. It can be reversed.
A line can be drawn between extreme cases and those that truly need the help.

Maxmars, You and others here are getting carried away there with irrational future scenarios of other government mandated actions. Why are you so fearful, get grip there.

The over reproducing by those who are abusing the system are simply making more who will do likewise. It is their lifestyle. They are dragging down the whole social structure.

Tell me why we should pay them to raise their children generation after generation.
You said the "model" needs to be changed.
Exactly how do you propose to do that? We apparently do not have the resources (human & financial) to take these people and their children to a higher level by education and job training. My personal opinion is that this would help many of them. I can also see that there are some who are basicly "feral people", and that nothing can change them.

I think that a good eugenics program would improve the whole human species. Presently we have 4000+ heritable defects. Don't you think it would be a good idea to work at eliminating those defects?

malcr, what a great idea - sterilize drug takers.....they frequently produce children that are mentally, physicaly & emotionaly defective. Eliminating this further tax burden on you & I is highly desireable.

As to the "God given right to reproduce" and infertile couples getting help with same---it seems that is a matter for God to sort out, not the government.

hidatsa, You say that being human entitles them to live. Tell me why being human entitles anyone to financial support from another. Feeding off another is what parasites do. An indeed many of these people are parasites.

Lots of ideas on this thread, most of them are not well thought out and are inapplicable to the situation. Many have gone on the defensive, identifying with the the subject people. YOu need to go mingle with them. Likely you will never be the same again, as you will come away with mind blown, wondering how people could get that way. You might even wonder if they are really as human as they look.

reply to post by Maxmars


Stupid system won't let me give you any more than one star.

I'm just so, so, sorry no one who needs to hear these things is listening to you.

reply to post by OhZone


I reviewed my posts searching for the referenced irrationality and (perhaps because its my own reasoning) I can't find it.

I will certainly grant you that eugenics as a pure science could improve the overall human population. There is no doubt also that there are those who (you refer to them as 'feral' - I kind of like that) that seem to be completely oblivious to the consequences of their reproductive folly.

But to imbue them with responsibility for the ills of society is, incorrect at best. There is little in the way of evidence to suggest that their existence, and the nature of their behavior, is caused by genetics at all. There have always been abusers of 'the system' as it were.

I find it untenable to demonize those who abuse the system at this end of the spectrum any more or less than the oligarchic elite who pick away at the social structure from the other end - making it impossible for others to advance by virtue of their insatiable greed and lust for power.

Who's to say that the intelligencia elite shouldn't be sterilized? After all this is their show, they hold all the cards, they develop and implement all the policies which got us where we are today. They maintain and support the structure that lends itself to this abuse. Maybe if we did away with their 'contributions' to the gene pool things would be different.

Irrationality is a two-way street and we have to be aware that hubris is a bad trait to bring to bear when judging the unknown. I think that, from their perspective, selfish and destructive as it may seem to me, they are simply taking advantage of a poorly implemented system of public service. It worked out great for them, why should they care? This is, after all the same mentality evoked by the greedy money-grubbing trash that screeches whenever society asks them to pay their fair share of taxes.

I think the focus should be on the the weakness in the system. Make it impossible to benefit in such circumstances, make them have to feed their own kids, before they feed themselves. Make child bearing a responsibility - not a civic issue. You are not empowered to grant anyone the 'right' to reproduce, so I contend it is not your place to eliminate it. Reproduction is not a right - its not a privilege - its a function of life. If your government wants to encourage the abuse - well - that's something you will have to try and change.

Irrationality is born of fear - yes I have some. I believe that I have never witnessed any government, social, or religious organization that can be trusted to use eugenics without succumbing to the temptation of abusing the power over the population they were meant to serve. I, for one, am not one of the 'beautiful people'. I have defects that I have passed on to my children, but if you try and 'eliminate' them because they don't fit the eugenic ideal you'll have to contend with at least one very angry individual - me.