Sterilise Parents on Benefits, Says Tory
March 25th, 2008Via: Telegraph:
A councillor is facing calls to resign after he said parents on benefits should be sterilised to stop them having more than one child.
John Ward, a Conservative member of Medway Council in Kent, made the comments during a discussion about the hunt for the schoolgirl Shannon Matthews.
He said her family was an example of social decline in Britain. He outlined his proposals to cut spending on social security payments.
advertisement
Writing on his personal website, the councillor said: “There is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second child – or third, or whatever – while living off state benefits.
“It would clearly take a lot of social pressures off all concerned, thus protecting the youngsters themselves to some degree, and remove the incentive to breed for greed, ie for more public subsidy.”
I think we’re still a few years away from forced sterilization, as the calls for resignation in this story support. But Mr. Ward is probably just trying to get the idea out there, get people used to it, and in a few years… who knows.
On the other hand, we have this, sponsored by 2 candidates for President, no less, which is much more likely to become law in our “drugs-are-the-answer” society: http://www.jbs.org/node/7435
if their commentary doesn’t convince you, check this out: http://tinyurl.com/2zwz72
All that “police state” stuff aside, no one wants to talk about the fact that overpopulation is the cause of most of the world’s problems. What I wish they’d do is pay people not to reproduce–I’d sign up for that with a quickness!
Nice. Man, if there’s a place in western civ. for eugenics to make a comeback, Britain is it.
The U.S. had widespread forced sterilization programs up through the 1940s:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020213063645/http://www.nzz.ch/english/background/background2000/background0007/bg000714usa.html
http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2003/09/ma_513_01.html
Star42, I disagree vehemently. Centralisation of population and power, zombie consumerism, fiat money, non-localization, debt slavery, among others, are the reasons a huge population will place a burden on resources.
The answer isn’t a cull or sterilization en masse; the answer is a radical change in lifestyle, i.e., an end to the current bloated, tumourous system.
Ah, yes. “Benefits” and welfare. What Frederic Bastiat termed “philanthropic tyranny,” — the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. I like the story, “Davy Crockett vs. Welfare”:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
1940’s?
Try 1970’s.
http://mysite.du.edu/~rprince/Elizabeth.htm
Um, a huge population will place a burden on finite resources regardless. You just can’t keep adding people without experiencing a lower standard of living for all. Besides, I’m a misanthropist, so far fewer people would make me blissfully happy.
Star 42, again, I disagree. If by standard of living you mean gas-guzzling SUVs, vast mileaged food supplies, hyper intensive farming, and so on, then you’d be right. But if people were allowed and encouraged to own their own (affordable) land and learn to reduce their reliance on and need for fiat money and the hedonistic crap it buys, my view is thair standard of living, as in, quality of life, aka contentedness, would soar.
*Sigh*…NO, I do NOT mean that, so just knock it off, already. Since I obviously have to spell it out for you, what I’m saying is that even if everyone lives the sort of lives you imagine, there will come a point where there will still be too many people. Finite resources are simply that–finite. Why do people refuse to see that? Too many in any capacity is still too many! It’s really not a difficult concept.