It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sterilise parents receiving government benefits, says Tory

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Sterilise parents receiving government benefits, says Tory


www.telegraph.co.uk

A councillor is facing calls to resign after he said parents on benefits should be sterilised to stop them having more than one child.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.blacklistednews.com




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
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)



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I am, of course, against this... but I can't help feel that this would speed up natural selection in this cushy world we live in!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I tend to agree. How many of us have seen people on welfare having kid after kid because it just means more $$ from the government? Welfare benefits should last 6 months to 1 year and then you're on your own. But surely this MP knew he would get flamed for mentioning something common sensical. I think he was being too idealistic to think anyone would listen to him.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Most people in America who are poor, go to work everday just like everyone else. Having children is a God given right.

EDIT to add: But if you do support this idea, I highly recommend you read this proposal

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   
OMFG this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of. Take away thier rights? Get lost. You cant sterilize people. Its called human rights. How abut if you're just in a rut and trying to get out. Cant find a job? People wont give you a chance? Seriously.... How about we sterilize this MP?

See how he likes it.

Sure there may be people out there who have kid after kid. Sure i dont agree with it. But because a few people do it doesn't mean you could rationalize or support this sort of behaviour. It's like hey. *points finger* Lets sterilize this group because we dont agree with this nehavious they are doing. We dont agree with them being black, white, latino, european, etc.

Thank god we live in a society that has some brainier people than this politician. How about we try to worm out these people with these sort of ideas and sterilize them?

Gimme a break people.... gimme a break...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


Whilst I agree that, in general, this idea wouldn't work, the Councillor (not MP), has a point.

Take this family tree for example, of the recently "kidnapped and returned" child Shannon Matthews:



This is a typical family tree of "council estate" benefit scroungers. Her mother has SEVEN children, by five different fathers!

You can tell by the very way she looks that she is one of these council estate "breeders". Sunken eyes, withdrawn look, pale in complexion and very likely inbred to hell:

USELESS BREEDER, KAREN MATTHEWS


There are whole estates of these people who are all related. I've seen genetic studies done of some famous housing estates and everyone who lived there was someone else's cousin, brother, sister or parent. No joke!

There is a guy at work whose neighbour has 6 kids (by different fathers) and openly admits to wanting a seventh so her benefits can go up from the already sky-high of £38,000/year and to avoid having to go to work! Another chaps sister in law is doing the same, but so far only has 3 kids (by different fathers)

There are rumours that the above mentioned kidnap was done as a "poor persons" Maddie, so that the parents could make a quick buck out of the papers (which they did...) and that the girl was on the verge of being taken away by Social Services anyway (note they haven't given her back yet either....)

Bottom line is, I am sure this Councillor was talking about people of this ilk, who just breed to ensure that the state provides for them while contributing bugger all in return. There are whole area's full of cretins like this.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
heck, I'd be happy if they would just offer free sterilization to those who want it, but just don't have the money for it. they're not even willing to do that much here in the US, I doubt that well ever see forced sterilization of the poor in this country......unless they found a way to force the poor to pay for it themselves!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
How about we just take away the incentive for them to keep breeding? Stop giving any additional benefits after the first child and force them to be responsible for themselves. If they criminally neglect their children that they continue to have, take the children from them and throw the parents in prison.

No sterilization and less of a draw on society. If they are going to burden society, do it in prison. The children would be better off being raised in a foster home than a home where they are inbred and raised to believe that freeloading and cheating the system is a proper life.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Such are the fruits of the socialist nanny state. The solution is freedom (which means personal responsibility), not eugenics in the form of forced sterilization.


sty

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I believe that having children is a fundamental right of any creature , and this include humans. Controlling this fundamental right, using force is a 100% NWO agenda. What is next?
1)forced vaccinations (it is already happening)
2)forced sterilisation
3)forced micochip impant
4)forced behaviour control using brain implants
5)forced eutanasia for "undesirables" ???

The proposal is absurd , and the population is aging and there is not enough work force to pay pensions and sustain the eldery within 20 years. This is why the European Union is now extended - to ensure influx of young migrants able to work / be taxed and of course having limited benefits. By forcing the one child policy they would bring the british nation to be extinct , as immigrants will allways be able to go to their countries to give birth , then come back to UK with 5,6,7,8 kids. Good luck !



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


So very un-PC, but also so very true Stu!

The benefit culture has to stop, but if you're unfortunate enough to have been born into that life, then the biggest aspiration influences you will be exposed to will be those around you...escape through education or other opportunity is very limited as it conflicts with the social status-quo and any attempt to break free and be different will be met with hostility as with any attempt to subvert the morals of your social groups peers, so you become conditioned to follow in your parents' footsteps.

The biggest single problem is the nature of Child Benefit...

This is made available to ALL parents regrdless of household income, even middle-class families who have a household income of £40-50,000 a year, it just means an extra foreign holiday to them...yet these are more than likely the same folk who will howl with derision at THe Daily Mail's news stories of benefit cheats on estates like you mention

Child Benefit should be means-tested and the money saved from those middleclass family benefit-cheats be funnelled into anti-poverty opportunity creating schemes...

The motto here should be: A hand-UP, not a hand-OUT!


[edit on 26-3-2008 by citizen smith]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Wow. Just wow.

My mother missed being forcily sterilized by chance. You see, her people were considered to be less then worthy of life too. Jenisch - Swiss Gypsies

Recently and after a long battle with the the Swiss authorities my mother recieved her official file of some 50,000 pages. In it my mother is described as mentally ill, A compulsive thief, and genetically pre disposed towards being a benefits cheat, this is from a file describing her at 8 years of age.

How dare we even attempt to justify that forced sterilization is in any way acceptable or a viable solution to any social problems?

Forced sterilization of "geneticlaly inferior" is eugenics. Breed out the benefits cheat? It's not far from "putting down" the mentally ill. Maybe we should get "rid" of the terrorists by gassing all arabs too?

It isn't a crime to be poor. It isn't a mental illness to be poor.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
my question is...once it's breeded out, who's gonna make the big macs, who's gonna file your paperwork at work, who's gonna check out your groceries at the stores, who's gonna print your crap, who's gonna do all that work that society seems to think isn't worth a living wage?
if a business needs a living breathing person to do a job, they should be held as obligated to pay a living wage.
and, if that business wants future employees doing that job, they should be willing to pay enough for their employees to have a child or two.
this isn't happening in the US at the moment, and this is where we are screwing up at! so, ya, let's kill off their future labor before they even have a chance to be concieved! let's see how well that one works.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Merigold
 


There is a massive, massive difference between race-based Eugenics and societal eugenics.

Your mother was persecuted for being from the ethnic group she was from, and that is a vile practice.

However if you read StuMason's post above, can you not honestly see the dysgenic effect upon the human species if we allow certain people to breed unchecked. We are talking about people the equivalent of the american "redneck" sterotype... highly inbred, with an IQ below 60, no job and basically of no use to society.

Lets make no bones about it, these people are undesirable elements in society. They are prone to drug abuse, alcohol abuse, theft, antisocial behaviour and incest. Thats not to say everyone on benefits is, but there are those entrenched in the system because they have no incentive to work.

Our dear nanny state is actually affecting the balance of evolution in our country. The rich are penalised by excessive taxes and driven out of the country, while the "undesirable" elements are given benefit after benefit while they contribute nothing.
Can you see how this is a gross injustice?

That said, the initiative is inconsiderate to those who dont deserve to be sterilized. There is also the issue of some people imposing their will upon others, which I disagree with.

Thus the optimal solution to stop dysgenics in society would be to end the benefits culture. There is no reason why hard working folk should subsidize the work-shy. For me to have to subsidize the pointless benefits given to women such as Shannon Matthews' mother is a forthright slap to my face, and its making me want to leave this country every time i take a look at my tax return.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
my question is...once it's breeded out, who's gonna make the big macs, who's gonna file your paperwork at work, who's gonna check out your groceries at the stores, who's gonna print your crap, who's gonna do all that work that society seems to think isn't worth a living wage?
if a business needs a living breathing person to do a job, they should be held as obligated to pay a living wage.
and, if that business wants future employees doing that job, they should be willing to pay enough for their employees to have a child or two.
this isn't happening in the US at the moment, and this is where we are screwing up at! so, ya, let's kill off their future labor before they even have a chance to be concieved! let's see how well that one works.


These are people that dont work whatsoever. They exist on income given to them by the state, which in turn is taken from those who actually do the jobs you outlined above.

Sorry for double posting, i just had to point this massive distinction out.


sty

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
allow me to disagree! in my country (Eastern Europe) most of the genius and great inventors used to come from very poor families. Maybe it is happening in my country only?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Perhaps another solution to the welfare-lifestyle would be to look at social models adopted by the likes of the industrialist-philanthropists:

Saltaire
Port Sunlight
Bournville

If a profitable and long-term business and venture-capital zone could be set up within these current 'sink-hole' estates it would provide a regular income to the residents, allow them to either live a comfortable life free from poverty, reinstate social pride and support networks within the estate...

Is a new twist on an old socially-engineered model such a bad idea for the most economically vulnrable in our society?

We as a nation in the UK have prided ourselves on these social institutions, such as the welfare state and the NHS and should capitalise on that standpoint...Beveridge would be horrified at the state of British society if he were alive today



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Dysgenics: Dumbing down of society

A thread I made a while back, which is now very fitting to this subject.

stumason is right, I went to school with a girl who openly told the teacher she would leave school, have a child and the government would then look after her.

This mentality needs to end now.

If you are only having children in order to benefit more from the state, then you should not be allowed to reproduce in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Who care about PC-ness.. Not you,or me either.

You are so right it's ridiculous.

I work..
I'm just not fortunate enough to have £200,000 to spend on even basic accomodation in UK so I'm waiting to be 'housed'..over a year now..behind a huge amount of Polish immigrants and these 16yr old housegrabbers who get one because they cant keep their legs closed.


I agree with this tory guy...Better still,before someone has kids they should be 'means-tested'.
It might sound harsh,but if they don't have the cash to support their own kids,how do you think the kids are going to end up anyway?


They don't even have the nuts to show their faces while they're mugging old grannies these days..



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join