Should the poor be Sterilised?

[BadFish]

What is less wonderful is how some folk sprang to the articles defence....

****ing terrifying really! Still never underestimate the hatred the anti-dole scrounger propaganda has created. Although to be fair we don't have to live in the thick of it and experience it everyday like those people in the poorest areas of the world like inner city London, Birmingham, Leeds and of course Tunbridge Well (I heard there was someone driving around in 7 year old Volvo the other week, ****ing peasants should be steralised).

 

[Enemy of the Estate]

Yes. Bring it on. Less money on condoms = more money for White Lightning. Win win

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

****ing terrifying really! Still never underestimate the hatred the anti-dole scrounger propaganda has created. Although to be fair we don't have to live in the thick of it and experience it everyday like those people in the poorest areas of the world like inner city London, Birmingham, Leeds and of course Tunbridge Well (I heard there was someone driving around in 7 year old Volvo the other week, ****ing peasants should be steralised).

Reminds me of a brilliant conversation I overheard at the bus stop. A cape coloured guy (with a broad english accent) was explaining how he was racially abused by a woman who told him to go back to his own country. He simply told her 'I don't like Tunbridge Wells'

 

[BadFish]

Reminds me of a brilliant conversation I overheard at the bus stop. A cape coloured guy (with a broad english accent) was explaining how he was racially abused by a woman who told him to go back to his own country. He simply told her 'I don't like Tunbridge Wells'

 

[Gwylan]

What..Don't get me going, my child was three months prem and is the love of my life. I would die for her..It's scum like that, who shouldn't have children in the first place....Just explain how I have advocated that

What has this to do with the the point kev has made, for which i am totally agree with with, why should those who willing chose to breed, in the full knowledge they have no intention what so ever of actually providing for that child?

OK then. A child is born to such parents. They don't want/aren't able to work. As I see it there are four choices. Kill the child immediately; stop paying benefit so the child starves to death; take the child into care (which is impossible at the moment and would cost billions to put into practice) or continue paying benefits. You say you don't agree with the first two, the third is impossible so that only leaves the fourth, the continuation of the status quo.

Which is what I said in the first place - it's not great but it's by far the least bad of the options.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

Yes. Bring it on. Less money on condoms = more money for White Lightning. Win win

When life gives you lemons and all that!

 

[BadFish]

OK then. A child is born to such parents. They don't want/aren't able to work. As I see it there are four choices. Kill the child immediately; stop paying benefit so the child starves to death; take the child into care (which is impossible at the moment and would cost billions to put into practice) or continue paying benefits. You say you don't agree with the first two, the third is impossible so that only leaves the fourth, the continuation of the status quo.

Which is what I said in the first place - it's not great but it's by far the least bad of the options.

You are missing the main thrust of this thread. As Gina rinehart didn't suggest we should sterilise poor people.........or all people if you don't want to pander to the handwringers and tree huggers!

 

[Garage_Doors]

OK then. A child is born to such parents. They don't want/aren't able to work. As I see it there are four choices. Kill the child immediately; stop paying benefit so the child starves to death; take the child into care (which is impossible at the moment and would cost billions to put into practice) or continue paying benefits. You say you don't agree with the first two, the third is impossible so that only leaves the fourth, the continuation of the status quo.

Which is what I said in the first place - it's not great but it's by far the least bad of the options.

Child up for adoption or fostered until parents are able to support themselves.
What happened before the benefit system?

 

[beorhthelm]

What happened before the benefit system?

poverty, neglect, abuse, babies dumped at the local church or orphanage.

 

[Gwylan]

Child up for adoption or fostered until parents are able to support themselves.

Yeah right. Let us know when you enter the real world that the rest of us live in.

What happened before the benefit system?

Kids were poisoned, thrown in the river, were suffocated, thrown down toilets etc. You know, as happened in China a few days ago. The lucky ones were as beorhthelm pointed out were left at orphanages - there were also workhouses for the not so lucky.

An awful lot were killed though, hard to put a finger on an exact number.

 

[tezz79]

Some things money can't buy......not having kids is not one of them !

An Ipswich fan taught me that now let it be a lesson to us all

 

[00snook]

A lot of the jobs that used to require menial labour are now done by machine, computers and even robots - and this trend will continue as technology improves until ultimately there are no menial jobs left at all.

I would agree that the rich would be useful if they released their vast wealth back into society, but generally they don't. 99% of the worlds personal wealth is owned by the richest 1%. There are more billionaires than ever, the wealth divide is greater than ever, and by keeping their trillions of dollars from the worlds economy they are keeping millions of people in poverty and the rest of us enslaved by mediocre wages.

I agree entirely that happens.

My arguement is that it has to be this way for society to function.

Who redistributes this wealth? Why would you aspire to achieve wealth if you knew It would just be redistributed to those who haven't bothered or aren't able to earn as much as you do?

The rich-poor divide is the way it is because it has to be this way.

 

[BadFish]

I agree entirely that happens.

My arguement is that it has to be this way for society to function.

Who redistributes this wealth? Why would you aspire to achieve wealth if you knew It would just be redistributed to those who haven't bothered or aren't able to earn as much as you do?

The rich-poor divide is the way it is because it has to be this way.

I agree entirely but would you accept that the gap between rch and poor is too wide. Should a company CEO earn 2 or 3 hundred times the amount of his average employee?

 

[tezz79]

Would lead to a nation full of people that want to live off of hand outs from mummy & daddy.
Without the drive & determination of the poor AND THEIR CHILDREN that have & do struggle to better the conditions they live in then a lot of the ****ing rich would not even be in the position they are in yet it's those people that get a licence to breed ?

Some people haven't got a clue

 

[theyellowdinosaur]

I think anyone who thinks that the poor should be sterilised should watch Plan B's film Ill Manors and then think what it would be like for a kid to have grown up in an environment like that I have a friend from Forest Gate and if his family hadn't moved then he would've joined a gang and ended dead or in prison most kids from that kind of background can't move away and have no choice because they are stereotyped and looked down upon by some middle or upper class **** who bases their opinion on people from those areas on what some tw*t in the Daily Mirror has said and what is wrong with living in a council house/estate

 

[Pevenseagull]

Take China in point. Unless it is a boy it can go to hell and just be thrown in a bin on arrival as happens a lot. Everyone has a right to breed. After all that is the only point why anyone of us is here.

Even when I get wood I'm firing blanks

Better top myself

 

[Seagull Stew]

I agree entirely that happens.

My arguement is that it has to be this way for society to function.

Who redistributes this wealth? Why would you aspire to achieve wealth if you knew It would just be redistributed to those who haven't bothered or aren't able to earn as much as you do?

The rich-poor divide is the way it is because it has to be this way.

Also, for society to function you need a system that will support the less well off, whether or not some of them abuse this system.

If there is no distribution of wealth, then how will the wealthy protect themselves from a large number of the population? Would they be free to walk the streets? Go for trips to the countryside? Or maybe we should just imprison the poor and when the prisons are full, begin a euthanasia program!

There is a price to pay for our freedoms. For a civilised society to exist with relative harmony, you need some balancing act. It is the way it is, because it has to be this way!

Amazing how a spoof news article can create such serious debate though.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

Amazing how a spoof news article can create such serious debate though.

That's what I thought, the tag line of the website is...

The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record

If that's not a clue. Its worrying how many extreme views came out...

 

[Seagull Stew]

That's what I thought, the tag line of the website is...

The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record

If that's not a clue. Its worrying how many extreme views came out...

But then again, with the CEO of Nestle going on record as saying that he believes water to be a commodity and not a human right, this actually sounds like a plausible news article!

 

[BadFish]

But then again, with the CEO of Nestle going on record as saying that he believes water to be a commodity and not a human right, this actually sounds like a plausible news article!

Certainly not far away from some views expressed on this thread. Which is worrying.