It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:52 PM
Would I be wrong in saying then, that the general consensus here is the same as that of a bumper-sticker I once read...

"If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em"?

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

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by citizen smith

Thanks for the scoop. I thought something didn't quite seem right there.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by citizen smith

Well, I personally condoned the murder in the womb of my unborn child, since I knew I had no way to support it and was in mortal fear of the miserable life it was almost sure to have. Not a day goes by that I still don't think about that, and that is precisely why I would literally kill to end poverty.

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Hey Max. I do agree the problem is a social issue. The problem I see is that it is very difficult to change the way people think. If you get involved in any thread on ATS you can see that. If someone gets the mindset to have babies and get free money for it, it is going to be next to impossible to get them to voluntarily stop. Why would they? They know it is wrong but they could care less.
I guess I am thinking along the lines of "tough love" in this situation. Sometimes it takes tough love for lessons to be learned.
I too have children and before I decided to have them, my wife and I sat down and talked about how big of a family we wanted. We collectively made that choice before we just banged and popped out kids.
Regarding the GOD thing.....people don't want to question what GOD thinks yet they wear WWJD bracelets. Don't want to debate religion here, but had to throw that one in. This is why I threw in the what would GOD think comment.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by citizen smith

Well, I personally condoned the murder in the womb of my unborn child, since I knew I had no way to support it and was in mortal fear of the miserable life it was almost sure to have. Not a day goes by that I still don't think about that, and that is precisely why I would literally kill to end poverty.

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

Hey jack. I was in the same situation as a 16 year old. My GF at the time and I both sat down and mulled it over and decided termination was the best thing. I couldn't imagine having a child that I could not ensure would have a good quality of life. Ensure through myself and the mom being able to provide on our own and not out of the government pockets. I too am continually reminded of that time in my life. At that time and stage in my life, it was best for all involved.

Citizen Smith:

"If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em"?


[edit on 3/26/2008 by palehorse23]

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:51 AM

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
How about a baby IQ test. They fail, and we toss them into a vat of acid. Jesus, look...........This is a good example of a person that thinks they are more important than they are. People fall on hard times, so what. Many even with kids have made it out of that mess. I think that when people come up with ideas like this, we feed them to lions on live TV.

I have to say TX, that I agree with you.

People are making blanket judgements on something that is actually only resolvable on an individual case basis.

And the "solution" they advocate is disgusting, and the start of a slippery slope into an inhumane world where people are judged solely on their current circumstances without any redress to potential change. What if someone picks themselves out of their situation and the sterilisation can't be reversed? What then if they want to have what is perceived to be a "normal" life which is considered to be "more socially acceptable"?

Am bitterly disappointed that some people think this is a good idea.

I agree that the benefits system needs overhauling because some aspects of it are ludicrous, but then so is the way MP's get paid, so is the Iraq war and the cost of deploying our forces there, so are the contributions we pay to the EU, so are the stupid pointless layers of administrative bureaucracy in central and local government, so is the policy of mandatory national ID cards, so is putting Bus Lanes on Motorways.... all of those things waste a damn site more money.

And when it boils down to it, its about money. People want to sterlise other people because they deem them to be "not worthy" and because of money..... how sick is that?

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by neformore

Nef, I think you've misconstrued what I and others have said in this thread. There is a purpose to the Welfare system, but those who abuse it for personally gain should not be allowed to. It is a sad fact that persons out there will breed for the sake of money and not having to work.

In these times of funding problems, should we really be forking out tens of thousands of pounds for each lazy household that cannot be bothered to work?

People have also complained about infringements on people's rights. Well, what about my rights? What about those people's responsibilities? I'm sick and tired of being expected to pull my weight in society, yet many more get a totally free ride on my back (and other taxpayers), deliberately and maliciously.

I'm not saying sterilise the poor. I'm not saying everyone on benefits is a scrounger.

But if you let me take you in to say, Whitley, South Reading, I'll show you exactly what it is that pisses me off so much and I expect there would be little to no defence for what you would see. The same goes for plenty of other "sink" estates.

My own older sister is a prime example of everything that is wrong with the system.

I feel shame when I am near her, for what she does and what she thinks.

She feels "entitled" to housing.

She feels "entitled" to money from the state.

She hasn't worked a day in her life since leaving school.

All because she had some drug-dealers baby, but that was only a few years ago. Prior to that she was just bone idle and lazy for the other 6 years of scrounging.

What exactly has she done to feel entitled to a bloody thing?

I'll tell you.

Fudge all, mate, fudge all.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:10 AM

Originally posted by citizen smith
Would I be wrong in saying then, that the general consensus here is the same as that of a bumper-sticker I once read...

"If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em"?

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

that's like saying that anyone making under $24,000 shouldn't be having kids, at least here in the US. That's somewhere around $12.00 per hour. factor in the fact that over 50% or marriages end in divorce and many of these women will end up getting very little assistance from the father of their children as well as the fact that these women also are still dealing with unequal wage scales...
well, let's just say that if we all followed this advice, our neighborhoods would be sounding like the tower of babel on the day of confusion we'd have to be importing so many immigrants to fill the labor need. and we'd still need all those workers out there in the economy working in those occupations that are making far less than that $12.00 an hour.
when I went to one of my bosses asking for the price of adding my kids to my healthplan, I was promptly referred to the state run programs....even the businesses are depending on their employees running and begging from the government. Businesses want living breathing people to do their labor, they don't want to pay enough to keep them alive, society doesn't want to pay any increase in price that may result if the businesses do, and no one wants the government taking their money to do it either. so where does that leave us?
for some reason, I don't think just telling people not to have kids is gonna solve the problem.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:39 AM
If you sterilise these "scroungers" than all that will happen is for calls to sterilise the next "scourge of society", drug takers for example. I'm quite sure there are folks here saying yeah right on..... Which of course makes my point beautifully. You will simply end up moving the acceptable boundaries since the hard boundary was crossed the day the state forced the sterilisation of ONE person. Where would it end.

The problem is the benefits system and ironically the solution is not to take benefits away but to give benefits to everybody. Just as the Child Benefit works at present. Please note nobody gets £38,000 from child benefits despite the "mistaken" posts given here. Quick maths folks : 1st child £18.10/week, subsequent children £12.10/week. Therefore in order to get £38,000 in Child Benefit you would need 3063 children!!!!!!!!!!

So that £38,000 is due to all the other benefits.

The benefit system is complex and those for whom the system was supposed to help rarely get the help! As my friend found out 2 weeks before Xmas when he was made unemployed (the only 2 weeks unemployment in his 35 years work life to date). However the "scroungers" will always get their benefit as he stated quite clearly in the benefit office! Why does this occur:

1. The benefit system is exceedingly complex, ironically to eliminate scrounging and pamper to right wing newspaper readers!
2. The scrounger sees their "profession" as being a scrounger and thus they are benefit experts. In fact far more clued up than the civil servants.
3. You will never ever design a system to eliminate scrounging do NOT delude yourself by believing this.

Number 3 is tricky since this means the knee jerk reaction is to stop all benefits and to have everybody fend for themselves. But is this really an option? The benefits system came about in the first place because that is exactly the system we used to have (pre wwII) and it failed miserably. What we need is a change to the way benefits are applied and to recognise that no system will beat the scroungers. Instead have a system whereby the scroungers are always NB ALWAYS the worst off members of society. So replace all benefits, tax, tax allowances, state pension etc etc with a 3 tier system:

1. Everybody (I mean from birth to death) pays the same flat rate of tax on all income no exceptions (40%-50%)
2. Every registered citizen gets a post tax state allowance that increases from birth to 16 then remains the same.
3. All NET RPI adjusted tax is recorded for all citizens and you can optionally draw 1/100th of this as an additional state allowance AT ANY TIME.

This system means that the more you earn the more you take home no exceptions EVER! The more somebody works throughout their life the more they have as a pension. The more they work the more they have as a state allowance should they have a period of unemployment. The higher income you have the higher the benefit you have later in life.

Of course there will be howls of protest about such a sytem since not only do the benefit scroungers end up being at the bottom (and we can safely ignore and forget about them) but the tax dodgers can no longer evade their responsibility either.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:07 AM
but before that would work though, you would have to imbed in people's brains that all the adults have an equal responsibility for financial support for their family....regardless of sex. which would require some major overhaul on how we usually handle the child care issues...since it's mostly the females that get saddled with the bulk of this responsiblity, which, in turn interfers with their ability to earn.
I mean, who are you talking about sterilizing? the women??
who is it who's picture is posted on this board as being public enemy number one...a women?
and who is it that every southern baptist church in america is claiming to be subservient to a man...but the women!! "If the husband doesn't want them working"... (of course he doesn't, that would mean one of two things, either all of her paycheck, and a good portion of his would go toward the childcare or he'd get stuck some with the kids)......"then she shouldn't be working!!!"

so, we have women thinking that since they have kids, they should have to work...they have their job.
we have women who would really prefer to work, but it's really just not ecomomically feasible.
and we have employers that will make it standard proceedure to give the women less pay, or disregard them for the job entirely if times are rough and they have plenty of options amoung the male applicants...since, well, "the men have families to take care of, the women have men to take care of them...or at least they darned well should!"

this basically describes what the job market was like for most of the time I've been in it. In a climate such as this, far too many women wouldn't be able to support their kids on their own. and well, society really never expected them to...never even entertained the idea...thus all the social bribes...or...I mean programs, to make them content to just stay home and take the monthly handouts.
now that, it's all become a problem, and the business sector has carried the idea that since someone else is there to take care of them so they can get by by paying far less over to include the government as the caregiver thus putting many of the men into a dependency state also...well, now it's a big problem, and those women are deemed public enemy number one!

dependancy=servitude, and society has deemed women are not worthy of freedom, so, they bribed instead of freeing....they refuse women their freedom, so now it's carrying over to the male population.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:53 AM
Ok, before I started working for myself, I used to party out etc , Living life to the full, enjoying my young adult life, then came along that I was pregnant, there was nothing I could do about that fact , and i must state i am glad about every decision i have made through my life and having my child was one of the best ones.
Many times i have had an 'accident', and had to sort it out, not through any fault of my own, down to drugs not working etc,
Now if I have a choice , I would say no more children, as simply I cannot afford it, But that is my decision. Sterilization is not my decision , just in case later in life i want a child.
Now say I was to have no work, and went on the dole/income support. I got pregnant with another child,and the sterilization thing came along to be a law or something.
Now i may be off work for a while, or I might be able to sort it out and get a job again.
Would you think it is right , even though as many of you say it is the people who abuse the system to have babies to stay out of work and live off of the government, for that purpose only... do you think it is anyone's right to sterilize me, ?
What sort of message do you think that is telling our children ?
They will all be so paranoid about having sex , hiding there children from the government, stressing out to get a job that they are under qualified for , stressing out that even though you are working you are less better off than on the dole because of the low wage they are having to receive in order to keep there right to have more children?
That is just an opinion, i cant type fast enough. I am not really enjoying this topic, but i cannot help but reply.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by electriclollypop
do you think it is anyone's right to sterilize me, ?

That is the key fundamental point here.

Kudos to you for sharing your story Ele.

"I'm sorry Ms.X, but you don't meet our criteria for reproduction in the United Kingdom and therefore her Majesty's Government has decided that you are to be sterilised under Section 24 of the Family Planning and Benefits Act 2008"

How crassly, utterly sickening is that idea? Read it again. I would fight against that in the same manner as I would have fought to defend this country from the Nazi's in WW2.

I live in England, not in a zoo where creatures are spayed to prevent them becoming a "problem"

reply to post by stumason

Stu, we've argued side by side on many UK subjects, but I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one. This would be a real-life violation of human rights (and I don't mean anything akin to letting prisoners watch telly) I don't see any merit in such an idea at all. There are other ways of dealing with societies issues than forced sterilisation.

[edit on 27/0308/08 by neformore]

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by DaRAGE

The above wrote "...because a few people do it doesn't mean you could rationalize or support this sort of behaviour."

A few? And you get your figures where?

If you can't support a child, you shouldn't keep having them. In those cases where a perpetual non-working woman OR man is involved in making a kid, there should certainly be a limit. The working people are tired of paying for others mistakes... paying for others selfish wants and poor decisions. 2 kids... maybe 3 tops... but enough is enough... then they get sterilized. It may be your right to have kids, but it is not your right to be a perpetual drain on the system because ya' can't keep your legs closed or your pecker in your pants. There are ways to keep from getting pregnant in this day and age... use them!!

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by neformore

How would you address the matter of child-poverty and the benefit-dependancy culture to break the generational 'learned helplessness' cycle then?

There's going to have to be a stating point which will be painful to those caught in this life-situation, the question is, how can can it be done in a dignified manner?

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:04 AM
Those banging on about this "God given right" to reproduce should consider this.

What about those who cannot conceive, for whatever reason? Surely, as it is their "God given right", they should be able to get as much help from the NHS in doing so?

Not true.

The NHS will, to eligible couples, provide up to three courses of treatment.

However, they will NOT provide IVF treatment if the couple already have a child, even if the child is from a previous relationship (so only one of the couple is actually a parent), or if you fall outside any of the other "guidelines" set down by the MoH.

If it is a "God given right", then why are people being turned away?

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by stumason
If it is a "God given right", then why are people being turned away?

Because of money.

Would it help you to know that I also think that policy, based on money, is wrong?

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:34 AM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

However if the system is being abused by a few whose sole purpose is to procreate in order to leech money off others, then dont you think we have a problem?

If this is indeed the case, then why sterilise, surely the most simple and cost effective solution would be to set a limitation on benefits. If the situation is as simple as you imply then surely by stopping benefits after a set number of children the incentive would be lost to have more children.

Sterilisation is shutting the door after the horse has bolted. There are thousands of people abusing the benefits system and they are by no means, all lone mother's. Hitler put those who were unwilling or unable to find work in concentration camps - that is how Hitler acheived the eradication of unemployment. He gave women who reproduced prolifically awards and financial incentives to continue to do so. He also murdered millions of women and children because they were unable to contribute to the economy and were therefore 'useless eaters'.

This government and previous governments have shown an inconsistent approach to the problem of benefit abuse. If we nolonger wish to provide support for women who choose to have children that they are unable to support then we have to put in place an alternative system. The CSA failed miserably in making father's financially accountable, it seems that we are eager to blame the women concerned but the men are just doing what men do, so why penalise them (no pun intended)?

The government pays these women to have children because in the long term the economy or the country needs those children. Most people who work have neither the money, time or energy to raise more than two children. Many leave it too late and have none at all. Someone needs to be reproducing the population. Of course they may not themselves contribute to the economy, becoming dependent on benefits their whole lives, but this given the stringent measures that the government is imposing on young people is unlikely. They unlike their parents will be forced to contribute. Unless you seek the radicalism of Hitler, these things take generations to be turned around.

The other consideration of course is if the world is escalating to a major war, we will need the 'cannon fodder' that the lower and under-classes have always provided. They make the perfect army, they lack a comprehensive education, they are dissociated from society and they are, now, increasingly brutalised - they are therefore the perfect material for the Sargeant Major to make soldiers of. If any of you read the New Statesmen, you will know that the British is coming under increasing criticism for it's practices of 'child recruitment'. Paying these women to have children therefore has a number of benefits, and this in some ways goes to explain why so little is done to combat the situation.

While we squawk about the fact that our tax is going towards supporting them we should in fact wonder why we have such an unfair tax system in the first place, which makes it unviable or at least unattractive to work at all. Why do we have economic immigration so that others can do the poorly paid work that the British are unwilling to? Wouldn't higher wages be a better solution? Why do some of the wealthiest employers in this country push for economic immigration while claiming non-domicial tax status and therefore not contributing to solving the welfare problems that this type of immigration creates?

Blaming poor and under-educated people for the problem is a cop out. If we did not have a system that engendered dependency and exploitation then they would not exist. I do not agree that women should be paid by the state to raise their children, but nor do I see any sense in sterilising women who have too many children. Besides, it is a moot point, it'll never happen, we adhere to the Human Rights laws and sterilisation would be a contravention. So alas really solutions are still required, no fanciful, psuedo-fascist quick fixes will suffice

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by neformore

Indeed. It may well be wrong, but we can't give everyone everything. Decisions have to be made.

Now, equating the fact not everyone can get IVF because of money, why should everyone be entitled to money for babies they produce naturally? Are we not discriminating against those who cannot conceive naturally? Are we not denying them rights?

(In case anyone is lost here, I'm pointing out a glaring double standard in the "they have rights" argument)

Surely the same money argument comes back into it?

This country can ill afford the huge amount of benefits that are paid out currently and are set to increase.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:49 AM
Perhaps the UK should follow the example given by Scandinavian states, where by parents are provided with free state childcare on the condition that they then go out to work and provide an income for their family.

The idea of mass sterilisation is ethically and morally irreprehensible.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:57 AM
Well, I may be changing the discussion round just a little bit , but Now after watching a documentary from one of the other threads on here, this could be the start of a population thing,
i.e Esoteric Agenda (its one of the hot topics on here i believe.

As for the people who believe that birth control should be used and to stop opening our 'legs' , then , how about when birth control does not work on the certain person. ? You may choose to answer , then sterilization is needed?

What if it ends up working so well this sterilization thing, that it carries on to people who do not take benefits from the system? what if you got told you are not allowed to have children and they operate on you?
what if someone said you talk too much , and you are upsetting someone, we are going to take away your voice box?
what if they decided to sterilize the male who has children with different partners, they were only allowed to produce one child.
What if that one child was handicapped? and you wanted another child?
what if you had one child, and god forbid, that child passed away, then you cannot have another child because you are sterilized?

As for the question that was brought up about fertility treatment, yes this is awful that you have to pass guidelines to receive treatment. There are always possibilities to adopt. Many children are most unfortunate to not have parents.

I think this is a violation of our freedom rights for sure i agree with that.

Who has the right to decide for you to take something out of your body. Weather you say yes or no to it.

I have no quarms with anyone who doesnt like the fact that people are taking the money and using it for themselves and abusing the system, but there are many other things that waste our tax payers money , other than people on benifits, and having children.

My thoughts.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in