Sterilisation of all unemployed ?

[Trouble]

I read today that a tory councillor has been likened to a nazi as he said unemployed/jobless parents breed for greed generally and do it to get more handouts from the government.

He suggested that anybody unemployed who continue to have children should be forceably sterilised after their second or third child.

At first i was horrified but is it such a bad idea?

Thoughts guys

[stewart38]

I read today that a tory councillor has been likened to a nazi as he said unemployed/jobless parents breed for greed generally and do it to get more handouts from the government.

He suggested that anybody unemployed who continue to have children should be forceably sterilised after their second or third child.

At first i was horrified but is it such a bad idea?

Thoughts guys

As long as there are enough kids to pay my pension I dont mind

I'm also of the view ALL KIDS

Should not been seen or heard or go on holidays within 1,000 miles of where Im going on holiday, but hey ho

[dep]

and if this is the third consecutive generation of the unemployed?

It fits the idea of:- is this the third consecutive generation of child abusers?
I'd do likewise with them as well.

There's a bit of Nazi in me somewhere.

[Double Trouble]

The problem for children of parents who stay on benefits for years and years is they think it is the norm, so are more likely to do the same when they are adults.

I think sterilisation for the unemployed is the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Why not just stop their benefits and not give them excuses not to work.

Working family tax credits are available to all on low incomes to help pay for child care, etc, so in my view there is no excuse for both parents not to be working.

[Astro]

Sterilisation of women is not a new idea.

Reasons were -

mother disabled - "physically unfit" - Routinely done to deaf women.

mother "mentally unfit"

operations where doctors thought they might as well whip the womb out seeing as her stomach was already open.

Males casterated for rape.
Eunochs - servants

[stewart38]

Why not just stop their benefits and not give them excuses not to work.

wouldn't they rob me then for their drug money ?

I dont like 'stero typing' people

Half the time its not cost effective for them to work

[Double Trouble]

Half the time its not cost effective for them to work

That's actually a myth.

What you mean is they earn only a small amount more by working so why bother when they can do nothing.

If I wanted to I could sit at home all day, get my mortgage paid, free school dinners for the kids, income support, etc, but the guilt and feeling of being worthless, useless and a bad example to my kids would never allow me to do that.

I'm not saying my way is the only way...it's just how I feel personally about my own situation.

[stewart38]

What you mean is they earn only a small amount more by working so why bother when they can do nothing.

In an ideal world you would earn a lot more at work and still do nothing , like most forumites on here who are working

[Double Trouble]

In an ideal world you would earn a lot more at work and still do nothing , like most forumites on here who are working

Guilty as chraged.

[Gav]

In an ideal world you would earn a lot more at work and still do nothing , like most forumites on here who are working

No comment .

[Astro]

Half the time its not cost effective for them to work

Not cost effective for the goverment.

Capitalism by it's very nature has to have unemployed people, simply because there would never be enough employment for everyone due to ecomomics.

It is a pyramid monetary structure, with the relatively few stinking rich at the peak, then various grades of wealth gradually ending with a huge mass of people living in poverty. (Benefits in this country are below the world poverty line)

The goverment and media put out propaganda saying the poor only have themselves to blame - they are lazy, shifless and a drain on society. The people who have a bit of money buy into it, as they begrudge paying taxes and think all their money goes to the "lazy scroungers"

Thus the government divide and rule. The oldest trick in the book.

Sometimes they and the rich get too greedy and there is a REVOLUTION.
France
Russia
China
America (colonial) Don't get me started on colonalism.

In this country there was the Wat Tyler rebellion
Plus Oliver Cromwell Revolution.

These days government who don't "support" the inevitable poor from the capitalist system they run, by giving out measley benefits are putting themselves in danger of being overthrown. They don't care about the poor which is why the poor never have any dignity. In fact, even the poor believe the hype.

[Zara]

I read today that a tory councillor has been likened to a nazi as he said unemployed/jobless parents breed for greed generally and do it to get more handouts from the government.

He suggested that anybody unemployed who continue to have children should be forceably sterilised after their second or third child.

At first i was horrified but is it such a bad idea?

Thoughts guys

Hmm, maybe the Tory Councillor would like to live on benefits for a few weeks, Im sure he wouldnt find much use for the word 'greed'.

People maybe unemployed for a variety of reasons: mental health problems, low job prospects, disabilities... or that old fashioned notion of CHOOSING to be a stay at home mum. Some people are long-term unemployed, others are short-term, would he discriminate against these or just send them all to the operating theatre? The idea of sterilising someone for not having a job is disgusting and clearly violates our basic human rights.

It is a pyramid monetary structure, with the relatively few stinking rich at the peak, then various grades of wealth gradually ending with a huge mass of people living in poverty. (Benefits in this country are below the world poverty line)

To rebalance this, the government need to look at creating social policys aimed at redistributing wealth.

I think sterilisation for the unemployed is the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Why not just stop their benefits and not give them excuses not to work.

Who would decide who was worthy of benefits or not? Who had been recieving them for too long? Whether A family should have their benefits stopped? There would be ethical implications to consider alongside issues surrounding equality.

[Gav]

I think we should sterilise everyone I don't like and everyone who disagrees with me.

[Double Trouble]

Who would decide who was worthy of benefits or not? Who had been recieving them for too long? Whether A family should have their benefits stopped? There would be ethical implications to consider alongside issues surrounding equality.

Actually, if you had quoted me properly, I was talking about couples where both are on benefits.

Why not just stop their benefits and not give them excuses not to work...Working family tax credits are available to all on low incomes to help pay for child care, etc, so in my view there is no excuse for both parents not to be working.

If both parents are able bodied and sound of mind there is no reason for both to stay at home claiming benefits.

I don't judge single parents who want to stay at home with their kids (although I think once the kids go to senior school, benefits should not be automatically handed out) as I said here...

...I'm not saying my way is the only way...it's just how I feel personally about my own situation.

I hope that's clearer.

[Zara]

Actually, if you had quoted me properly, I was talking about couples where both are on benefits.



If both parents are able bodied and sound of mind there is no reason for both to stay at home claiming benefits.

I don't judge single parents who want to stay at home with their kids (although I think once the kids go to senior school, benefits should not be automatically handed out) as I said here...



I hope that's clearer.

I had unemployed lone parents and unemployed couples in mind when I wrote my post.

Unemployment is often (by all means not always) an issue related to class. People who identify as being working class can lack the desire to work, they may just not see it as important. This can be explained by inequalitys in education, employment and society that oppress the working class, making job satisfaction seem almost unattainable. So if you believed that you are only capable of recieving the minimum wage (which is ridiculously low IMO) in a mundane job...well you can see why there would be little incentive. Perhaps a more effective way of tackling unemployment would to be to look at these root causes and make changes there.

[~*~Saligal~*~]

That's actually a myth.

What you mean is they earn only a small amount more by working so why bother when they can do nothing.

If I wanted to I could sit at home all day, get my mortgage paid, free school dinners for the kids, income support, etc, but the guilt and feeling of being worthless, useless and a bad example to my kids would never allow me to do that.

I'm not saying my way is the only way...it's just how I feel personally about my own situation.

Weird - you say it's a myth then your next comment supports it!
Btw - since when does guilt/feelings have anything to do with cost effectiveness/efficiencies?

[Barry Shnikov]

It seems to me that no-one disputes or is able to dispute the fact that we have more people of working age in this country than we have jobs for them to do.

If so, that means that whatever happens, there will be unemployed people.

If there are unemployed people, is it better for them to be paid to survive by the state, or to be left to their own devices and make a living by petty crime? - think of Fagin and his wild boys.

I'd sooner the state paid for them. Yes it's a drain on our resources but may very well be cheaper than the alternative; it's more civilised, and I prefer to live in a more civilised society; and it probably produces less fear and loathing than the alternative as well.

If some people don't want to work, might as well pay them benefits. If there must be unemployed people, why not?

[Trouble]

If some people don't want to work, might as well pay them benefits. If there must be unemployed people, why not?

yes there must be employed people of course there will. But why then do they bring more and more children into the world that they are unable to care for properly or give the best start in life. Dont get me wrong, some unemployed parents do give their children the best they can but some dont and some do have children to get more financial aid from the government.

Most working people can hardly afford one child. Some unemployed parents and by parents i mean couples, have over three children. Im not suggesting that enforced sterilisation is the answer of course im not, i dont know what the answer is. It does happen though doesn't it ???- children = bigger benefits?

[Dreadful Scathe]

People who identify as being working class can lack the desire to work, they may just not see it as important.

In this era of Jade Goody celebs and Hello magazine, "class" is merely an excuse for your social situation, not a reason.

So if you believed that you are only capable of recieving the minimum wage (which is ridiculously low IMO) in a mundane job...

It really isn't, even the lowest paid jobs provide a good life. Its hard to buy a house but then thats a new concept in itself - it used to be rare to own a house.

Perhaps a more effective way of tackling unemployment would to be to look at these root causes and make changes there.

Or not pay out - then you have to work.

I read today that a tory councillor has been likened to a nazi as he said unemployed/jobless parents breed for greed generally and do it to get more handouts from the government.

I doubt people breed for greed but is it positive in a society when there are parents out there who choose to have more children then they can economically support themselves? (not to mention emotionally support, but thats a different matter)

He suggested that anybody unemployed who continue to have children should be forceably sterilised after their second or third child.

It will go that way eventually - the planet has only so many resources...watch this space in 50 years.

[DavidY]

It will go that way eventually - the planet has only so many resources...watch this space in 50 years.

China have had a "one child per family" policy since the 1970s - not without its problems but you can see why they adopted it.

The US state of Wisconsin has an interesting approach to unemployment benefit too - you can't claim it for very long and have to get a job. It doesn't actually save them any money, but it means people are in work.