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
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
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