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: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
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.



I didn't read that in what Maxmar said. I read a simple itemisation of what is most horrific about current ruling orders. I understood it to refer to the victims of excessive corporate profit and how their desperate conditions could be alleviated by a simple act or two of humanity.



Originally posted by OhZonehidatsa, 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.



Why are humans entitled to live? Let me give that some thought. Wait a minute, I think I've got it. Because the gift of life comes from God and we are all God's children. Wait a minute, maybe you don't believe in God. Okay, then, because selective breeding destroys the gene pool and only through infinite combination and variety can perfect evolution be achieved.


Tell you what. Why don't you stop being coy. You don't want these people sterilised. You want them gone. Would you like to do the killing yourself or would you need some help?




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hidatsa

Originally posted by OhZone



Tell you what. Why don't you stop being coy. You don't want these people sterilised. You want them gone. Would you like to do the killing yourself or would you need some help?



Wow, I wish I had thought of that!



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
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.


Society is inclusive, not exclusive. The social benefits system that was developed on the findings of the Beveridge Report laid the foundation of one of the UK's greatest social achievments...the Welfare State and the NHS

A safety net for all, and healthcare for all, regardless of background or circumstance. We are not isolated individuals, but a dependant collective, and it is our duty to help those who are less able than ourselves

One of the biggest causal factors in the dissafection of the younger generations of the 'underclass' has been the decline in education opportunities, to where schools are driven by league tables and exam results. We all have talents, and not all are necessarily academic. If you don't fit into the current school system, you are marginalised and written-off, there is very little alternative in the form of practical school-level education that could spark these bright young minds.



I can also see that there are some who are basicly "feral people", and that nothing can change them.


So, again you are saying that just because someone is born into a financially-poor, opportunity-scarce life, that they are condemned to that life?



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 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.


I AM from 'that' background, and according to you, I shouldn't be able to advance any further in life than beyond my next giro. The one facility available that I truely took 'advantage of' was libraries, I read anything I could get my hands on, taught myself many different skills, and am now about to graduate in Architecture with a vision of helping lift the 'sink estates' out of the economic mire and help alleviate the poverty that I lived through in my early years...

Whilst I'm on my soapbox, let me give you an insight into how it could be done:

A network of government-grant aided small/medium industries set up in these economically deprived areas to provide employment and skills training in the manufacture of solar-power photovoltaic/thermal systems, fitting, and maintainence. This would enable an economy of scale to be achieved in that area which would bring this technology within reach of those who could not previously afford it, and a much needed skilled workforce to expand the uptake and regular maintainance of the technology

As the majority of the housing stock is owned by Housing Associations, if they invested in the provision of each house to be fitted with PV/Thermal systems, it would have the immediate and longer-term effect of alleviating 'Fuel Poverty'...where one household previously had £40 per week total disposable income after electricity and gas bills, they would, say, have £60 per week disposable income...doesn't sound like much, but an increase in a third of usual income would make so much more of a difference to the current poverty levels

That is my driving ambition...from someone who grew up from the estates and is determined to give others behind me on the ladder a hand up...

I got off my arse and am in the process of doing something to help the situation of others...what have you done?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Many have gone on the defensive, identifying with the the subject people.


Its a required first step towards understanding a need.


Originally posted by OhZone
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.


Though uncertain as to which "them" you mean, I work very closely with some extremely decent and intelligent human beings, some of whom have many more children than they should reasonably expect to support without aid, some of whom have insufficient schooling to spell their 'X'es correctly, some who have family and friends who have died unnecessarily through suicide and through drug-related crime, but all of whom have, at some time or another, helped me marvel at the strength of spirit that allows them to endure the hatred of their more civilised and better educated neighbours.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I do not think it is a god given right to have kids. Its personal chice, that is your right.

Personally people should be steralised during puberty or something, and given a licence to breed. Then those who do not want, that does not matter to the. But to be a parent you have to at least prove yourself worthy.

I never see the problem in this.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The idea of eugenic's and such as noted is not new. The ida of abuse of government support is obviously not new either. The problem with government is allowing the support abuse to continue and placing limitations on it.

As for the breeding problem, sterilization is NO answer. And telling the population that you can only have so many kids is NO answer as you can see even China is giving loosening its rules after having limitations for awhile now.

If you want to start working on serious ways of cutting back on population control, then proper education regarding birth control needs to be undertaken and that means religion has got to stop getting in the mix. People have got to want to cut back of thier own choice.

Sterilzation was done back in the day, even here in the U.S. But it is always done for the wrong reasons. When are people going to realize that we really do not have the right to force our will upon others. It is always because, those who want to dominate think they have the right to rule.




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonar
The idea of eugenic's and such as noted is not new. The ida of abuse of government support is obviously not new either. The problem with government is allowing the support abuse to continue and placing limitations on it.

As for the breeding problem, sterilization is NO answer. And telling the population that you can only have so many kids is NO answer as you can see even China is giving loosening its rules after having limitations for awhile now.

If you want to start working on serious ways of cutting back on population control, then proper education regarding birth control needs to be undertaken and that means religion has got to stop getting in the mix. People have got to want to cut back of thier own choice.

Sterilzation was done back in the day, even here in the U.S. But it is always done for the wrong reasons. When are people going to realize that we really do not have the right to force our will upon others. It is always because, those who want to dominate think they have the right to rule.



Thanks for knowing your history. Seems every couple of decades some rocket scientist proposes the 'wisdom' of second guessing the natural order. Fortunately for us this time there are those who will recognize it for what it is: an attempt to 'play' god.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


But surely the natural order was done away with when people who couldn't otherwise support or raise a large family are now artificially propped up and given the means to produce offspring that otherwise wouldn't have been born?

The "natural order", as you put it, hasn't had a look in for many decades.

As for education about birth control, well, it happens intensely in UK schools. I had my first lesson (in a CoE school no lessl) when I was 10. We then had Sex Ed every term until I was 16. If people still don't know about contraception etc, then they are truly dense. There is no excuse for not knowing, as it is rammed down every school child's throat.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I for one think the guy is talking sense. Im sure he wasn't talking about a blanket steralisation for everyone on benefits, they'd obviously have to be some form of selection criteria. ive reead a lot of replies to this talking about human rights, freedom to have children etc etc. What a load of new age bull! What about the right of the child that will be born into a family that is only having it because mum and dad forgot to use contreception one drug enduced night. What about the quality of life the child is destined to have, being brought up on welfare and hand outs, ultimately growing up with the same twisted morals as its parents! And so the spiral pattern continues!
If your aren't in a solid enough situation to give a child everything it needs then you shouldnt be having one. 90% of people on benefits are on them because the are too lazy to work and believe that the worls owes them a living. Theyve grown up with both fat lazy hands held out for the next freeby! Why should they be allowed to breed just so that they can get a bigger council house and more beer money. Do people honestly believe that these people spend the free money on the new child! Please, grow up and see the world for how it realy is. Im betting that half the people on this site saying this is a bad idea have never even seen the average UK benefit style family!
And as for the MP who voiced this idea, why should he have to resign? People are constantly banging on about human rights, what about his human rights, article 10 ECHR right of expression!! Im getting fed up of public figures having to resing because of their ideals and comments. We can sit here all day and say what we want yet people who are in a position to make a change get forced to resign if they say anything slightly controversial! Are we that soft that people can't speak their minds these days!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dogbone
see the world for how it realy is.


Dominant species: humanity
Predelictions: destruction
Current activities: annihilation of the planet they live on and every culture that ever thrived

Good point. If we're already messing everything else up, why shouldn't we destroy people with no money. It's a lot easier than finding a solution to their problems. Begrudgery is so much fun, isn't it, guys?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Actually, this may deserve more critical analysis.


Originally posted by dogbone
I for one think the guy is talking sense. Im sure he wasn't talking about a blanket steralisation for everyone on benefits, they'd obviously have to be some form of selection criteria. ive reead a lot of replies to this talking about human rights, freedom to have children etc etc. What a load of new age bull! What about the right of the child that will be born into a family that is only having it because mum and dad forgot to use contreception one drug enduced night. What about the quality of life the child is destined to have, being brought up on welfare and hand outs, ultimately growing up with the same twisted morals as its parents! And so the spiral pattern continues!


1: It isn't "blanket sterilisation", so it must be ok. I seem to recall the little Austrian Corporal having very similar ideas. He, too, was scathing about human rights. I suppose you must first define human. Jews weren't human then. The unemployed aren't today. The remainder of that paragraph - the bastard child, the drug-induced intercourse - is just childish stereotyping and, frankly, insulting. I started to say more, but what would be the point? This kind of thinking never changes. It is superior thinking, it is the kind of thinking that will finally destroy the human race. It is self-serving and cruel and demeans the value or any contribution that doesn't come from another of its limited, elitist stratum.



Originally posted by dogbone90% of people on benefits are on them because the are too lazy to work and believe that the worls owes them a living. Theyve grown up with both fat lazy hands held out for the next freeby!


And some people are too lazy to check their statistics. You will grow up one day, God help us, you might even hold a position of some influence in your community. I mourn for your community. I weep for the victims of your wrath. I have very little hope for your reform, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. Maybe three ghosts will come and visit you at Christmas or something. Who knows.......



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I can NOT believe what i am reading!!!

What the hell is going on with you guys????

first of all, who the f%^$^ made any of you who "think this a good idea" in any way shape or form an authority of any kind what so ever to even think you have the right to decide who can and can not have children???

Second of all, do you think if the people on benefit stopped claiming that the government would REDUCE YOUR TAX BILL????

I don't think so, they would find yet another con to spend your money on and tell you they were helping you! and then you'd all be p%$ed off about that!

Bottom line is, the world we live in is not our natural home any more, do you think ancient people had these kind of really stupid rules?? NO!! having children was and still is a blessing, and the mere fact that i have heard people basically saying if people aren't rich enough they shouldn't have kids is making me want to leave this site and never come back here again

Divide and conquer hey, they're doing a bloody good job listening to some of the things i just read, i thought this was a place where people were open minded, and yet everyday i come here i see threads that are basically creating little democracies and trying to infiltrate laws..... Love and Freedom, isn't that what we want? have you ever thought about WHY people are on benefits???

have you ever thought WHY the government do the things they do?

Give you a wellfare state, to help the poor, then tell you we need to take more tax... what happens? the rich and poor divide and the rich hate the poor for taking their money and the poor feel down and stay there

let immigrates in the country, what happens, the government "help" the immigrates then tell you we need to take more tax, then races divide and the people hate the immigrates and the immigrates hate the people for hating them, need i go on???

The money you are all arguing over isn't now and never will be yours, the government have been robbing us for centuries but because you can't see past the nose on your face you take the easiest route when it comes to blame

forced sterilisation is just another way the NWO are planning to reduce the population, open your eyes people

this is brainwashing at it's best and i am absolutely disgusted!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
oh, and another thing, the stereotyping of that girls mother was just ridiculous, no one has a go at celebrities for swapping and changing partners or having kids with different people, i am absolutely seething, the arrogance with which you judge people... sometimes things happen to people which aren't their fault, and this can affect them for the rest of their lives, and even their childrens lives

treat the symptom not the cause is NOT in my opinion the way to go about things



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
It seems completely 'programmed' that those who have will prey on those who don't. When elements of our societies suffer, those in the middle offer the impetus for the entire society to respond with a helpful hand (after all those in the middle are much closer to being at the bottom that anyone else).

Those at the top will always characterize this as 'bringing down the rest of us down because they don't accept the need to deal with such trivial matters as 'stupid poor people.' These are the same folks who prance around pointing at homeless people spouting "There is plenty of work available - get a job! You're circumstances are a result of your poor decisions in life!" Meanwhile they hire every accountant they can so as to avoid paying taxes and maximize their 'investment' returns (i.e. money they 'earn' for doing nothing.) And they lobby heavily to ensure that the loopholes (or incentives as they like to refer to them) are always forthcoming.

Then they are surprised when the poor people find ways to 'maximize their returns' via the only means readily available to them - welfare (or whatever you call it in the UK - or EU). And rather than change the system, the wealthy want to, in essence, kill off the poor people.

If someone should ever quantify the cost that the 'not poor' people suck out of the system by bypassing taxes and other such 'loopholes' you would likely find that they are ten times as much a 'drain' on the system as the 'wretched low life poor people who should be sterilized if they don't 'get with the program'.)

By the way I say 'not poor people' because if you call them wealthy they get offended. You see, they never want the source of their wealth closely examined - ever. You might find out that they are as ungrateful and money grubbing as those damn poor people!


[edit on 1-4-2008 by Maxmars]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Thank you for helping to restore my faith in humanity a little!! i'm still really upset about this thread!

What you just said was brilliant by the way

real x



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogbone


I think you need to revise your delivery because in some aspects, you're undermining your own argument. Forgive me if this comes off as patronizing, I mean no disrespect.

Categorizing the objection to institutionalized sterilization is hardly 'new age'. I can not in good conscious state there may never be a situation where sterilization is appropriate. My reasoning regarding what some call the 'right' of reproduction or the 'God-given right' angle is very clinical. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, faith, or politics (per se). Its simple: It is the natural state of all living things to breed. There are no rights involved, civics has nothing to do with biological imperatives. It's not like society 'gave' them the ability to eat, breath, and reproduce - so in my opinion it is a power grab to say society can take them away.

If you recognize the extraordinary nature of rendering someone sterile as an act of social justice, then surely you must recognize that such action requires extraordinary due process to carry out. So, who would decide? Who would you empower to decide on that matter - and in keeping with general social order, how would such decisions be 'ratified' or enacted - who would have oversight on such a thing? This line of reasoning is a long dark road with a number of hazardous obstacles in the way. 'New age?' I think not.

If we accept the hateful way in which you hypothesize the child's conception, are you of the opinion that such children shouldn't be born? I mean to ask - should we - for the sake of argument - go down the path of 'all accidentally conceived children should be aborted?' (Of course, unless you can afford them) Somehow I don't think that's what you really meant to convey - but if you did, I would have to disagree (some of us were 'mistakes' from one perspective, and 'surprises from another). Also, you seem to indicate that those born under, or into, such circumstances are automatically consigned by 'conditioning' to be an additional burden on society? Again, it seems hard to buy into the notion, especially since by that reasoning the daughters and sons of great leaders and personalities should all be great persons as their parents were - I haven't known that to be true.

You will have to accept or reject what I am about to say - there are plenty of fat, lazy, freebie scrounging wealthy people out there, such characteristics are not limited to those who are poor. In fact, I would love to have the time and means to see if there are as many of one as there are the other - my instincts tell me the numbers are probably comparable.

Insofar as ' if you can't afford to have kids, don't have them' - that's kind of simplistic. After all there have been people who's finances have taken a turn for the worse 'after' the kids were there, there are those who (based on whatever) believed that the child, once conceived, is coming whether they can support it or not. Most people seem to find it easier to assume a simplistic reason, would that include the hypothetical decider of who gets sterilized and who doesn't?

Now for the tough part, I have been poor, really poor, while I was on benefits I was considered 'too lazy to work, thinking the world owes me a living.' It's was comments like that that fueled the class hatred which prompted so much friction between people who otherwise were quite similar to one another. I found it shameful to harbor such an attitude that speaks of prejudice regarding those of lesser means. It made me resent the people who seemed to never want for anything in their lives, never been hungry enough to eat dog food, or to spend your medicine money on school items for your child. Being poor is not a sin, regardless of some peoples desire to punish people for it.

As far as this public official having to resign, I agree - there is no reason to resign unless he had done something in violation of his office. Speaking one's mind, however controversial the subject, should not be punished. His point would have been better served if he had focused on the abuse instead of generalizing about those who a in potential position to abuse the system.

My biggest beef is the one-sided nature of the accusation - in terms of callous sleazy people out there, money and social class has nothing to do with it. It's just that one is more visible than the other, and it is often made so by those who would not bear closer scrutiny themselves.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
karlhungis has it right in my opinion. The solution isn't forced sterilization. That only opens the door to forced eugenics down the road: "oh, you have a family history of cancer and diabetes, no breeding for you! Oh, you have bad eyesight? too bad so sad". The key is accurate reporting by social workers. If I go in for welfare or whatever other socialism....I mean social program there is and I have a wife and two kids (for example) then (assuming my wife isn't pregnant) I would get the benefits for two adults and two children, that's it. I have any more children before getting off of welfare or social security then that is my problem.

Some people are able to afford multiple children and still get benefits. I don't know 100% if the law is still the same, but an acquaintance of my mother has 9 children (which they can afford and not going on WIC) but they still get tax free status. It used to be (maybe it still is) that if you have 8 children or more you didn't have to pay taxes (income anyway) but it might have been just state taxes (in louisiana), it's been a while since I've lived there. The problem arises when someone is on welfare, getting WIC for the one child they have, living in subsidized housing or "the projects" as they are known in the vernacular, then having 7 more kids to get tax free status.

So, in closing (sorry, I'm watching law and order right now so I can't help but speak legalese) Sterilization isn't the key, just more accurate monitoring of current benefits and if we're lucky a whole revamping of social programs currently on the books.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by realism
 





the mere fact that i have heard people basically saying if people aren't rich enough they shouldn't have kids is making me want to leave this site and never come back here again


There is a problem with your statement. BASICALLY saying is not the same as ACTUALLY saying it. Unless you can quote someone saying those words, it is only your interpretation.
It isn't at all about whether someone is rich enough. It is whether or not they are taking advantage of temporary assistance designed to help them get their lives on track. Whether or not you agree, some people believe there should be a control mechanism in place on a program such as this. They are entitled to that. If other's opinions make you want to leave a public forum site, then maybe you shouldn't have started in the first place. Not to dig you, but that is why ATS is such a great place. We can all share our thoughts, regardless of what an overwhelming opinion might be. If someone's beliefs make you want to leave, then that is a sad thing and I for one would be sorry to see someone leave for that reason.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Trying to "right" a wrong, by committing another wrong is absurd.
Yes, people are abusing the system, and those that are, should be warned that unless they stop, their welfare will be cut off.
My God, don't we have enough fascist tendencies in play here, without adding more.
Let's look at what has happened in the last few years:

    The Supreme Court of the US has given governments the right to take your house away, if a business is going to be putting up a structure that brings more money in.

    An appeals court in California has ruled that parents that home school are breaking the law and should go to jail.

    The Patriot Act has trashed the Constitution, and the right of Habeas Corpus.

    The President uses signing statements to essentially usurp Congress' responsibility of making laws.

    The Federal Reserve prints billions to bail out banks and corporations (The REAL Abusers of public funds).

    An 80 year old man is arrested in Smith Haven Mall, Long Island for wearing a shirt that proclaims that 4,000 troups and 1 million dead Iraqis are enough.

    The US ignores International Law- agreements that the US signed on to.

    The Free Press has all but ceased to exist. Virtually all MSM are controlled by the government/corporations.

    The US has established an organizations of corporate spies that inform on employees.

    The government continues to experiment on unknowing citizens, testing chemicals and other dangerous substances.

    The government flooded public water systems with dangerous Fluoride.

    Elections are routinely rigged, and judges are bought.

    Candidates like Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich are given no, or very little press, and are routinely excluded from debates.


The Government plays God way too much. Let's not give them another power.
Fix the problem, but don't create several more.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Apex Predator
 


I can accept that as a starting point. I think the most important thing to remember, if the money given to underclass people by the government is subject to oversight and review, if the benefit is actually a control mechanism - it should not be presented as a benefit. It should take the form of directed intervention. Otherwise some taxpayers and 'socially militant' people will always object and claim moral superiority over the beneficiaries of largess they themselves can't get. (Everyone has a right to develop an opinion, even those who would deny it to others)

In many cases I have seen this objection, particularly from someone who could have, and would have, used the benefit to increase their value to society (perhaps fail - but at least earnestly make the attempt to improve and give back to the system for someone else to use as a lifeline.)

It's a crying shame when these people in the gray area between needy and not needy enough, get bypassed, in deference to a recipient who seems neither to posses the motivation to make good use of the opportunity society has compelled itself to provide, nor is the system 'motivating them' in that direction.. This, I believe is the true wellspring of the angst we see in this thread.

Having granted that validity to the objection; I claim the right to add that those objectors be wary of the hubris they spew thinking that by virtue of not being poor THEY have a say in moral generalizations about the suffering of others. Having been very close to the 'lower-class' lifestyle and community (which is, though it shouldn't be, akin to being an outsider even among your own countrymen) I can say, without hesitation, may it never happen to you - being truly poor means not only to be without wealth, for many it means to be considered worthless. I don't know which side of the equation you want to be on, if I have to choose, I will not be one to say "your worth to society and the worth of your potential kin have been evaluated and the people find that you must be removed from the gene pool." Sorry, I grant no man that kind of authority, if it came to that in my government, I would have to separate myself from that community.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join