[chapman.]

Does anyone else think it should be introduced? If anything it is the one thing Hitler got right.

Have any of you really thought that everyone deserves a chance to breed? Like the people on Jeremy Kyle for a start - the ones who scrounge off benefits. They'll have 10 children, and then THEY will scrounge. It's an infestation in Britain! How much money could be saved and put to better use if those 5+ children scroungers were sterilised and unable to plague the world with any more of their children.

Just to clarify, I in no way advocate Hitler's other policies/beliefs. Some people cannot read simple English.

[Snagprophet]

Do a game show like The Running Man and the winners get to have babies?

[ThumbsUp]

but where would you draw the line?

[chapman.]

Naturally it would depend on the state of the winner in question - have they had sex with their brothers sister and just found out it's their sister(what I imagine Jeremy Kyle is like)? If so, sterilise.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by chapman.)
Have any of you really thought that everyone deserves a chance to breed? Like the people on Jeremy Kyle for a start - the ones who scrounge off benefits. They'll have 10 children, and then THEY will scrounge. It's an infestation in Britain! How much money could be saved and put to better use if those 5+ children scroungers were sterilised and unable to plague the world with any more of their children.

p

So.. surely the more logical, reasonable, sensible and humane option is to sort out benefits, introduce better education into contraception + raising kids etc, better promoting jobs in certain areas, giving more incentives to work rather than purely get benefits and things such as that?

But ofcourse, **** that, ignore the problem, lets just stop people having kids.

[chapman.]

(Original post by ThumbsUp)
but where would you draw the line?

Where do you conceive too far to be?
I imagine 4 surviving children, 7 surviving pregnancies.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[chapman.]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
So.. surely the more logical, reasonable, sensible and humane option is to sort out benefits, introduce better education into contraception + raising kids etc, better promoting jobs in certain areas, giving more incentives to work rather than purely get benefits and things such as that?

But ofcourse, **** that, ignore the problem, lets just stop people having kids.

My solution is easier and not affected by economic issues, as yours is.
And anyway, a leopard doesn't change it's spots. Dressing **** up doesn't make it any less ****.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Nick100]

(Original post by chapman.)
My solution is easier and not affected by economic issues, as yours is.
And anyway, a leopard doesn't change it's spots. Dressing **** up doesn't make it any less ****.

Your overly simplistic, and not at all easy "solution" is effective in the same way that removing someone's heart will prevent them from dying of a heart attack. It will create other problems down the line, and will encourage the government to attempt to solve complex problems with simplistic, brute force solutions which reduce people's liberty.

If you want to save money on child-benefit scroungers then a much easier solution than sterilisation would be to abolish child benefit, or only apply it to the first two children. If you want parents to raise their children well then discontinue the state pension; if parents are dependent on their children for their own future welfare then they will have a financial incentive to raise their kids well.

[The Patriot]

No. Completely insane idea.

Illiberal and impossible to manage.

[chapman.]

(Original post by Nick100)
Your overly simplistic, and not at all easy "solution" is effective in the same way that removing someone's heart will prevent them from dying of a heart attack. It will create other problems down the line, and will encourage the government to attempt to solve complex problems with simplistic, brute force solutions which reduce people's liberty.

If you want to save money on child-benefit scroungers then a much easier solution than sterilisation would be to abolish child benefit, or only apply it to the first two children. If you want parents to raise their children well then discontinue the state pension; if parents are dependent on their children for their own future welfare then they will have a financial incentive to raise their kids well.

Tell me how rendering someone infertile is akin to killing someone.

[chapman.]

(Original post by The Patriot)
No. Completely insane idea.

Illiberal and impossible to manage.

Not at all. I'm not talking about creating a super race, banishing fatties from the realms of fertility. I'm talking about pruning here and there, making a better society. Not insane, just outside the box.

[daviddd!1994]

Naaa

[Nick100]

(Original post by chapman.)
Tell me how rendering someone infertile is akin to killing someone.

The point of the analogy is that by "solving" one problem using your method you will certainly create a much larger problem. Can you not see how massively increasing the government's power and removing thousands from the work force will cause problems down the line? You are effectively giving the state permission to assault citizens who haven't committed a crime of any kind.

If you want to get rid of the problems with the welfare state, get rid of the welfare state; do not attempt to correct them by a massive expansion of government power and bureacracy (the kind of crap you are proposing would require a massive amount of bureacracy to manage).

[chapman.]

(Original post by Nick100)
The point of the analogy is that by "solving" one problem using your method you will certainly create a much larger problem. Can you not see how massively increasing the government's power and removing thousands from the work force will cause problems down the line? You are effectively giving the state permission to assault citizens who haven't committed a crime of any kind.

If you want to get rid of the problems with the welfare state, get rid of the welfare state; do not attempt to correct them by a massive expansion of government power and bureacracy (the kind of crap you are proposing would require a massive amount of bureacracy to manage).

What work force is being hurt? These people don't work, and neither will their children. That is why it will not harm society - removing a negative creates a positive reaction.

[Nick100]

(Original post by chapman.)
What work force is being hurt? These people don't work, and neither will their children. That is why it will not harm society - removing a negative creates a positive reaction.

So cut off their welfare and the problem is solved. It will harm society because you will hit innocent bystanders (although as no crime need be committed for someone to qualify so I doubt you care about collateral damage), you will remove workers and you will not solve the problems with the welfare system and may indeed postpone the actual solution.

You also started this topic with "Hitler got this right"; if you are associating your own position with the Nazis then how can you possibly hope to convince large numbers of people that you are correct?

[chapman.]

(Original post by Nick100)
So cut off their welfare and the problem is solved. It will harm society because you will hit innocent bystanders (although as no crime need be committed for someone to qualify so I doubt you care about collateral damage), you will remove workers and you will not solve the problems with the welfare system and may indeed postpone the actual solution.

You also started this topic with "Hitler got this right"; if you are associating your own position with the Nazis then how can you possibly hope to convince large numbers of people that you are correct?

I don't think we see eye to eye. I do not care about people's feelings. We as a society care too much, this is why we have fallen behind in every area of life. China built a heathrow size airport in 8 months. We can't build half a runway in 2 years. We need this.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by Nick100)
So cut off their welfare and the problem is solved. It will harm society because you will hit innocent bystanders (although as no crime need be committed for someone to qualify so I doubt you care about collateral damage), you will remove workers and you will not solve the problems with the welfare system and may indeed postpone the actual solution.

You also started this topic with "Hitler got this right"; if you are associating your own position with the Nazis then how can you possibly hope to convince large numbers of people that you are correct?

Cutting off benefits doesn't solve anything- it merely makes the problem worse. More people in poverty with less help to achieve a better job than their parents, will result in more people slumping into poverty and exaggerating the problem.
By no means I am saying that the idiot that started this thread is right, more the exact reverse; more help should be given to the children of workless parents to allow them to climb up the social ladder to a point where they will no longer need state help.

[chapman.]

(Original post by Alistair122)
Cutting off benefits doesn't solve anything- it merely makes the problem worse. More people in poverty with less help to achieve a better job than their parents, will result in more people slumping into poverty and exaggerating the problem.
By no means I am saying that the idiot that started this thread is right, more the exact reverse; more help should be given to the children of workless parents to allow them to climb up the social ladder to a point where they will no longer need state help.

If you disagree that doesn't make me an idiot.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

surely if you wanted to do this for this reason then it'd be easier to just cut these people's benefits

[najinaji]

I love how most people's reaction to this is saying that we should cut benefits...

So instead of people not being able to have children, they'll be able to have children who starve. I don't know how many of you have studied history (or current affairs) to any extent, but people don't simply stop having children because they're too poor to afford them. See Africa.