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.


Eugenics through the back door

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:52 AM
About time too !! I have known a number of women who have had children purely to get a bigger house and more benefits. It stinks.
Many women are having a number of children all by different fathers. They claim benefits for each child as well as claiming the child support from the fathers. They do very well out of it indeed.
One particular woman i know who is in her early 20's has had 5 children by 3 different men. She was given a 4 bed house, all paid for. Money for all the children from the state and the fathers. She was getting a fortune and living a very decent lifestyle. She had far more money to spend on herself than alot of people i know who work fulltime and extremely hard.
This should have ended a long time ago. It's a shame it's only happening now because the government has no money left to fund it.

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by TheComte

Limiting the number of children is not Eugenics. …

Eugenics is the act of manipulating the gene pool in order to weed out genetic flaws and undesirable traits. ...

There is no doubt "the poor" are classified as "degenerate" and "unfit," and targeted for Eugenics policies.

From your source

…eugenics …involved "interventions", which is a euphemistic name for for the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as "degenerate" or "unfit"

That said, there is a huge difference between poor people who suddenly find themselves out of work and unable to support their families, and those who have learned to "game the system" by having more children just to get more money. …Deal with the real problem yes, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater - or classify the poor as "degenerate" or "unfit."

The cream does NOT rise to the top in our economic system, only psychopaths do. They're targeting the wrong group.

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I'm personally tired of paying for other people's kids.

If you can't afford to have a child, then don't have a child! Why would anyone think the government should provide for their children? It's irresponsibility at the highest level.

Irresponsibility and/or poverty + wanting an abortion should be common by my deductions.
Then it's still sounds cheaper to have free abortion, no matter what side you are.

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by soficrow
There is no doubt "the poor" are classified as "degenerate" and "unfit," and targeted for Eugenics policies.
The cream does NOT rise to the top in our economic system, only psychopaths do. They're targeting the wrong group.

I couldn't agree more!

Weeding out the 0.0001% that are exaggeratedly hopeless genetically, isn't a bad idea.

The body is a soul prison, everyone should get the chance to have a decent temporary prison here on earth...the chance to really live what 3d living life is.

Being excessively challenged physically or mentally is like, going in a bumper car ride and never get a chance to move more than 2 feet. The best hope you got, is to be ignorant of your disability.

But the poor?? The unfit??
No, it doesn't make sense at all.

The unfit are the ones that can't accept that the whole damn system is totally upside down, because really, it is!
"My people are the misfits, the ones that don't fit in
With the smile I know it comes within"

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:30 PM
This wouldn't fly in the UK and it definitely wouldn't fly in America.

People don't like giving money to the poor or people who "game the system", but what are you gonna do?

If you stop giving people money they're just going to starve to death or be out on the streets panhandling. How would people react to that?

There needs to be a way to help people other than give them money. You might say, "just give them jobs," but where are these jobs going to come from?

At least, by giving them money, you help stimulate the economy at the cost of some raw materials. It's a little like the stimulus package they released in America a few years ago should have gone down instead of just bailing out the big companies.

You give a check to people who need it and they have no choice but to go out and spend it on the goods and services that people want (not just the big businesses that mismanaged their funds). The businesses that make "good" products have an increase in demand so they hire people to make more products. The "poor" people come out happy and complacent. The government makes a big chunk of the money back in taxes. Everyone wins.

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:33 AM
Sorry , but if you cant feed them don't breed them !
I am not bashing beneficiaries ( I am one ) but why should the tax payer fund people who cant afford to feed the children they are spitting out whilst being on a benefit .

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in