Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Britain should introduce Sterilization or Birth Control Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Your proposal is unworkable unless you have a country that passes laws to force women to have abortions against their will but people can come into the country with as many children as they like if they were born abroad so loads of middle class people can have as many children as they like while the poor can't afford it.
    Let me reiterate the riposte I already made to that point: do you really think that a measurable number of middle class families are going to move abroad for 9 months just so they can have an extra child, which statistically they won't want anyway? :rofl:

    It happens in China but they have a repressive regime and loads of babies are aborted at 8 months or killed by their parents or abandoned in children's homes.
    Maybe you should actually ask a Chinese person if that actually happens. From what I have been told first-hand, in rural areas the one-child policy is often overlooked completely, or families are allowed to keep trying for children until they have a boy (due to necessity when living a subsistence lifestyle), and in the cities, breaking the one-child policy is punishable with a fine.

    The actual government line on the matter is "One is good, two is okay, three is too many". Hardly stringent, draconian authoritarianism now is it.

    Not to mention that twins, triplets etc are automatically exempt from the one-child policy.


    You really can't compare a proposed two-child policy (which being subject to our law, would probably mean that punishment was imprisonment or a hefty fine - not abortion), with the (loosely enforced) one-child policy of a pseudo-communist East-Asian superpower.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Quite frankly, I think we should all be sterilized, sharpish.

    On a similar but more positive note, it's an interesting fact that eunuchs (i.e. those who've had their danglies chopped) live on average 13 years longer than "normal" men.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    She simply wouldn't have 2 children. She'd continue having as much as possible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Are you suggesting we sterilize all Daily Mail journalists?

    As for the actual article, I think its a testament to how evil the Daily Mail is that they would kidnap gollum and dress him up with £2.60 worth of clothes from Sports Soccer. Someone should call RSPCA!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Let me reiterate the riposte I already made to that point: do you really think that a measurable number of middle class families are going to move abroad for 9 months just so they can have an extra child, which statistically they won't want anyway? :rofl:



    Maybe you should actually ask a Chinese person if that actually happens. From what I have been told first-hand, in rural areas the one-child policy is often overlooked completely, or families are allowed to keep trying for children until they have a boy (due to necessity when living a subsistence lifestyle), and in the cities, breaking the one-child policy is punishable with a fine.

    The actual government line on the matter is "One is good, two is okay, three is too many". Hardly stringent, draconian authoritarianism now is it.

    Not to mention that twins, triplets etc are automatically exempt from the one-child policy.


    You really can't compare a proposed two-child policy (which being subject to our law, would probably mean that punishment was imprisonment or a hefty fine - not abortion), with the (loosely enforced) one-child policy of a pseudo-communist East-Asian superpower.
    Why would people have to go abroad for 9 months, all they have to do is go abroad for a week or 2 to have their baby then come back with the little mite. They could time it with their holiday like David Cameron.

    If you have a weak 2 child policy where people can flout, why have one? Its going to make the government look like an ass and whoever is proposing it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Why would people have to go abroad for 9 months, all they have to do is go abroad for a week or 2 to have their baby then come back with the little mite. They could time it with their holiday like David Cameron.
    Because its not like being pregnant is that easy to hide these days, and if a family did go abroad for just the birth, the authorities would know if the family had been in the country for the rest of the pregnancy - unless of course they'd been working cash in hand, and not claiming any state benefits... which would be a legal matter in itself seeing as they'd not be paying tax either.

    If you have a weak 2 child policy where people can flout, why have one? Its going to make the government look like an ass and whoever is proposing it.

    We have a petty crime policy people can flout - its not that hard to just grab a chocolate bar off the shelf in a newsagent and run for it. But do most people shoplift? No, the vast majority of people don't.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Because its not like being pregnant is that easy to hide these days, and if a family did go abroad for just the birth, the authorities would know if the family had been in the country for the rest of the pregnancy - unless of course they'd been working cash in hand, and not claiming any state benefits... which would be a legal matter in itself seeing as they'd not be paying tax either.




    We have a petty crime policy people can flout - its not that hard to just grab a chocolate bar off the shelf in a newsagent and run for it. But do most people shoplift? No, the vast majority of people don't.
    You are aware you policy is unworkable.

    Consider the following:

    If someone see a pregnant woman in the street, would they drag her off to be questioned about how many children she has?

    1.What if she has 2 children already, would she be forced to have an abortion?

    2.What happens if she says she is leaving the country before the baby is born, will she be released or not?

    3.What if she was about to leave the country but the baby is born prematurely?

    4.Would doctors be prevented from giving women who have more than 2 children antenatal care and forced to report the women to the authorities, would a British doctor do that?

    5.What would happens if a woman has three children and wants to enter the country, will she be forced to leave one behind?

    So on one hand you be willing to force a woman to have an abortion, on the other its a trivial law that easy to evade?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Thank you for that clearly unbiased and impeccably temperate comment :ahee:
    The only way to beat a biased ass wipe is to become one yourself. Thanks for disregarding 3/4 of what I said. I'd promote socialism if I were you, it's the only way you're gonna get off the breadline with your intellect.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You are aware you policy is unworkable.

    Consider the following:

    If someone see a pregnant woman in the street, would they drag her off to be questioned about how many children she has?
    No but her workplace would be bound by law to report the pregnancy, lest they get fined when the child is born for not reporting it. This goes hand in hand with what I said earlier about the government knowing whether or not a woman was in the country during her pregnancy via tax returns/national insurance payments/claims made etc.

    So of one did not leave the country for the entire pregnancy, one would have to disappear.

    1.What if she has 2 children already, would she be forced to have an abortion?
    I already said that a hefty fine or a prison sentence would be more likely

    2.What happens if she says she is leaving the country before the baby is born, will she be released or not?
    She will be prosecuted upon return, if she returns with the child before it is 16. (i.e. before it can join the workforce).

    3.What if she was about to leave the country but the baby is born prematurely?
    If she is emigrating then there is no issue, the issue you brought up was leaving the country merely to have an extra child, before returning to raise the child in the UK.

    4.Would doctors be prevented from giving women who have more than 2 children antenatal care and forced to report the women to the authorities, would a British doctor do that?
    Of course not, the penalty would be a fine/imprisonment. Why are you so intent on accusing me of advocating forced abortion, and now denial of NHS services? :lolwut:

    Furthermore, doctors would not need to report anything. If the woman wants her child to go to school, have access to healthcare etc, she'll have to register the birth and face up to her punishment, else she runs the risk of being prosecuted for not doing so, as well as for child neglect for effectively denying it education and healthcare.

    5.What would happens if a woman has three children and wants to enter the country, will she be forced to leave one behind?
    It will merely be another factor in the current immigration 'points system'.

    So on one hand you be willing to force a woman to have an abortion, on the other its a trivial law that easy to evade?
    Again, I've stated many times that the child will not be held accountable for its mother's actions.

    If you call emigrating for nearly a year (or permanently) trivial, then you are clearly much wealthier than I, and very out of touch... :teehee:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    No but her workplace would be bound by law to report the pregnancy, lest they get fined when the child is born for not reporting it. This goes hand in hand with what I said earlier about the government knowing whether or not a woman was in the country during her pregnancy via tax returns/national insurance payments/claims made etc.

    So of one did not leave the country for the entire pregnancy, one would have to disappear.



    I already said that a hefty fine or a prison sentence would be more likely



    She will be prosecuted upon return, if she returns with the child before it is 16. (i.e. before it can join the workforce).



    If she is emigrating then there is no issue, the issue you brought up was leaving the country merely to have an extra child, before returning to raise the child in the UK.



    Of course not, the penalty would be a fine/imprisonment. Why are you so intent on accusing me of advocating forced abortion, and now denial of NHS services? :lolwut:

    Furthermore, doctors would not need to report anything. If the woman wants her child to go to school, have access to healthcare etc, she'll have to register the birth and face up to her punishment, else she runs the risk of being prosecuted for not doing so, as well as for child neglect for effectively denying it education and healthcare.



    It will merely be another factor in the current immigration 'points system'.



    Again, I've stated many times that the child will not be held accountable for its mother's actions.

    If you call emigrating for nearly a year (or permanently) trivial, then you are clearly much wealthier than I, and very out of touch... :teehee:
    You certainly going to make this country a lot nastier than now. People informing on their colleagues, doctors spying on their patients, rich people being immune from the law while the poor suffers.

    Reminds me of East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.

    Its a good thing your idea has as much chance of getting into law as you developing a conscience.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You certainly going to make this country a lot nastier than now. People informing on their colleagues, doctors spying on their patients, rich people being immune from the law while the poor suffers.
    But the rich statistically don't have many children...

    In any case, to use wealth to circumvent such a law (as I have proposed it) would require a 16 year exile - hardly immunity from the law: its a self-imposed punishment.

    I specifically said that (and explained why) doctors wouldn't have anything to do with the implication of such a law.

    People wouldn't be informing on their colleagues at all either :lolwut: unless of course they and the pregnant woman are working cash-in-hand, not filling out a tax return each year - which is illegal anyway.

    Reminds me of East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.
    You were there then, were you?

    Its a good thing your idea has as much chance of getting into law as you developing a conscience.
    The only real argument here is whether it is ethical or not for the state to dictate how many children one can have. Personally, I think a government has that mandate, should it be part of their manifesto when they're elected, or if is put to a referendum and passed by the public.

    Argue with me on this point all you please, but for the love of god stop trying and failing to describe my proposals as unworkable, because they are actually pretty watertight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who has more than 3 children should be admired. White Europeans are a dying breed and I salute all chavs who help keep our numbers up.

    Chavs = conservationists
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    But the rich statistically don't have many children...

    In any case, to use wealth to circumvent such a law (as I have proposed it) would require a 16 year exile - hardly immunity from the law: its a self-imposed punishment.

    I specifically said that (and explained why) doctors wouldn't have anything to do with the implication of such a law.

    People wouldn't be informing on their colleagues at all either :lolwut: unless of course they and the pregnant woman are working cash-in-hand, not filling out a tax return each year - which is illegal anyway.



    You were there then, were you?



    The only real argument here is whether it is ethical or not for the state to dictate how many children one can have. Personally, I think a government has that mandate, should it be part of their manifesto when they're elected, or if is put to a referendum and passed by the public.

    Argue with me on this point all you please, but for the love of god stop trying and failing to describe my proposals as unworkable, because they are actually pretty watertight.
    Your policy is workable if the state becomes extremely oppresive. In the same way you can kill mentally and phyiscally handicpped people if the state is oppresive enough like they did in Germany in the Nazi era. Its all a matter of how ruthlessness the state is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Your policy is workable if the state becomes extremely oppresive. In the same way you can kill mentally and phyiscally handicpped people if the state is oppresive enough like they did in Germany in the Nazi era. Its all a matter of how ruthlessness the state is.

    I don't really see how using (what is already) readily available information is 'extremely oppressive'.

    Now you're just comparing the methods already used to catch benefits cheats and tax-evaders, with those used by the Nazis to euthanise 'undesirables'. :rofl:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    I don't really see how using (what is already) readily available information is 'extremely oppressive'.

    Now you're just comparing the methods already used to catch benefits cheats and tax-evaders, with those used by the Nazis to euthanise 'undesirables'. :rofl:
    You either have a law that is effective or you don't. If you propose fines for having more than 2 children, then the better off will just pay the fines and have as many as they like.

    If you force women to have abortions regardless of their wealth, then that will be a real deterrent.

    The statistics argument dosen't hold water. Plenty of people have more than 2 children or like the idea they can have as many as they like without being made into criminals.

    The country will also be treating British people more harshly than foriegners who can have as many children as they like and come and live in Britain. They can even have as many children as they like in Britain while the natives can't. I'm sure thats not going to be a vote winner.

    Which is it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You either have a law that is effective or you don't. If you propose fines for having more than 2 children, then the better off will just pay the fines and have as many as they like.
    Not if you make the fines proportionate to income/wealth. I also mentioned the possibility of a jail term.

    If you force women to have abortions regardless of their wealth, then that will be a real deterrent.
    Why bother? Enough people will be put off by the fines, and those who aren't will be paying money into the treasury. Plus no uproar from the human rights lobby.

    The statistics argument dosen't hold water. Plenty of people have more than 2 children or like the idea they can have as many as they like without being made into criminals.
    Why? When people are suddenly told they can't have more children, they wont suddenly want more. Especially if its something they voted for.

    The country will also be treating British people more harshly than foriegners who can have as many children as they like and come and live in Britain. They can even have as many children as they like in Britain while the natives can't. I'm sure thats not going to be a vote winner.
    I did already point out that this could be factored into the immigration 'points system'

    The only way they could circumvent the system is to come here illegally and thus face all the problems associated with not having citizenship.

    Which is it?
    The system of fines and/or imprisonment - obviously.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Elipsis)
      The only way to beat a biased ass wipe is to become one yourself. Thanks for disregarding 3/4 of what I said. I'd promote socialism if I were you, it's the only way you're gonna get off the breadline with your intellect.
      I remember you now. You're that guy who hates on the asians :ahee:
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.