Should we sterilise the poor?

[ukdobby]

I wouldn't limit how many children they have but would limit the layouts to say 2 kids then no benefits for more,if people want more no problem but they should support them.

[*_ash_*]

Interesting question, don't you think?

 

At first glance it doeasn't even merit discussion. The answer is "no". Isn't it?

 

However, the idea has reared its rather ugly face twice recently. Well known Eugenics fan Toby Young has suggested selecting embryos for intelligence as a way out of poverty.

 

Add to that, Ben Bradley's suggestion that vasectomies are the way to stem a "vast sea of unemployed wasters" and you have a question that needs answering.

 

These are two mainsream members of the Tory right wing. Young was well enough regarded to be given a role supervising Universities, Bradley is a vice chair of the Tory parliamentary party. So neither of them are so divorced from Government that they can be regarded as mavericks.

 

So, can we selectively breed poverty out of the human race? Would we want to?

 

There are so many parameters in this post, that's it's difficult to respond.

 

The obvious, and the actual answer is no. Intelligence and poverty aren't directly related for a start, and poverty is now a political term, rather than what poverty is. It's almost a pointless word...

 

As for your point; killing off the poor would not help, as it would just create new poor.

 

and this is a point, that is related to that.

 

And it works both ways. If we eliminated all the rich people, then the next richest would then be the richest.

 

-

 

I'm almost certainly in the UK terminology of living in poverty, yet I have a roof over my head, running water, relatively warm , and food is cheap and I can afford it. This alone, makes the UK definition of poor/poverty different to what I consider it to be.

 

It also doesn't account for different societies. Some surviving old tribes don't use money (so have none), but they survive, so are they poor?

 

 

I'd actually be in favour of some form of population control, not killing people off, but perhaps restricting number of births per woman (as an example).

 

Over population is a serious problem (and it's getting worse, fast), in fact, you could say it's the primary issue we face as a species, and most other significant issues arise as a consequence of over population.

 

Over population is going to be a problem (as already is), but then we encourage it. We try and find cures for everything that will kill us, and efficiency in food production means there is potentially enough food for everyone.

 

I'd actually be in favour of some form of population control, not killing people off, but perhaps restricting number of births per woman (as an example).

 

Well, at least it's a suggestion, but this wouldn't work in modern society, and doesn't work, China being the obvious example. And can you imagine the fights in nightclubs to pull someone?! Won't someone think of the police bill!

Edited January 17, 2018 by *_ash_*
slight alteration, to make a point clearer

[Annie Bynnol]

Below is part of a speech by a highly influential British politician:

"The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. ...children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence...are unmarried, ... deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. ... They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters. Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.

 

Yet what shall we do? If we do nothing, the nation moves towards degeneration, however much resources we pour into preventative work and the over-burdened educational system. It is all the more serious when we think of the loss of people with talent and initiative through emigration as our semi-socialism deprives them of adequate opportunities, rewards and satisfactions.

 

Yet proposals to extend birth-control facilities to these classes of people, particularly the young unmarried girls, the potential young unmarried mothers, evokes entirely understandable moral opposition. "

 

Speech by the Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Joseph BT MP (Leeds NE) Conservative Spokesman on Home Affairs , 19 October 1974. Cabinet minister under four Prime Ministers and Creator of Thatcherism.

 

Full speech available from Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Edited January 17, 2018 by Annie Bynnol

[tinfoilhat]

I wouldn't limit how many children they have but would limit the layouts to say 2 kids then no benefits for more,if people want more no problem but they should support them.

 

So if poor people who have a third child by "accident" and don't abort for religious reasons, does the state take the child, do they starve? What if a couple has 5 kids and sole bread winner gets run over and the mother is on benefits? Does she get money for 5 kids or does she have to get rid of three?

[mickey finn]

Tell us what you think? Not what others think or propose.

 

Have you used a forum before ?

[El Cid]

At first glance it doeasn't even merit discussion. The answer is "no". Isn't it?

 

However, the idea has reared its rather ugly face twice recently. Well known Eugenics fan Toby Young has suggested selecting embryos for intelligence as a way out of poverty.

 

Add to that, Ben Bradley's suggestion that vasectomies are the way to stem a "vast sea of unemployed wasters" and you have a question that needs answering.

 

Is anyone suggesting 'forced' steralisation? Its perfectly ok to offer it for free.

I think steralisation would improve the lives of some families. Its always good to have the idea of improving mankind.

There are massive challenges ahead, with our very large population, we have climate change to deal with.

 

We are a rich country, do richer countries have fewer poor people?

[Naive]

I wouldn't limit how many children they have but would limit the layouts to say 2 kids then no benefits for more,if people want more no problem but they should support them.

 

Is this limit for the mother, or the father?

[El Cid]

This is why we have a problem.

 

Experts suggest decline in longevity in post-industrial towns has direct correlation with 'public service cuts and austerity'.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/life-expectancy-uk-plumments-ons-data-hartlepool-torridge-amber-valley-barnsley-a8164171.html

[willman]

Is anyone suggesting 'forced' steralisation? Its perfectly ok to offer it for free.

I think steralisation would improve the lives of some families. Its always good to have the idea of improving mankind.

There are massive challenges ahead, with our very large population, we have climate change to deal with.

 

We are a rich country, do richer countries have fewer poor people?

 

It already is free.

[El Cid]

It already is free.

 

Maybe we should also offer them tea n biscuits, like when you give blood