25 Aug 10
Originally posted by whodeySome marriages are all about children, some most decidedly are not. The institution has been contingently related to having children, but today about 40% of children in the U.S. are born to unmarried mothers, and many married couples are deciding not to have children.
Marriage has nothing to do with having children though.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by whodeyA case is currently in the UK news of a mother with an IQ level of 55 who has had several children, fathered by a man with a 65 rating, all of whom have had to be 'taken into care'.
Dead beat parents should be targeted by the state. No society can function otherwise.
She is apparently pregnant again and the local Council have applied for sanction to have her sterilised. Those in favour say 'aye'
25 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYour only point? But now you have two points. The one above and the one a little way further up above that: "Dead beat parents should be targeted by the state", which is a different point.
My only point here is that if the parent are dead beat parents the state has no business giving them tax breaks.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusThe state should sterilize someone because she's stupid?
A case is currently in the UK news of a mother with an IQ level of 55 who has had several children, fathered by a man with a 65 rating, all of whom have had to be 'taken into care'.
She is apparently pregnant again and the local Council have applied for sanction to have her sterilised. Those in favour say 'aye'
Yikes.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by FMFSounds like more socialism to me. How many IRS bureaucrats will it take to police the populace? Should they have unfettered access to your bank accounts?
Your only point? But now have two points. The one above [b]and the one a little way further up above that: "Dead beat parents should be targeted by the state", which is a different point.[/b]
25 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76No, because she is regularly giving birth to children whom she cannot look after and who have to be taken into care and rehomed with foster parents.
The state should sterilize someone because she's stupid?
Yikes.
Apparently she and her partner will not use any form of contraception despite the ongoing attempts by social workers to persuade them to do so.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI agree completely. Eugenics got a bad reputation after its endorsement by some of the world's worst human beings, but Im sure it deserves further consideration considering the benefits it can bring to society at large.
Actually, I think there is some merit to the idea of forcibly sterilising anybody who is patently too stupid to bring up a child, and it sounds very much like those two would qualify. Frankly, the whole eugenics issue is well overdue for reconsideration IMHO.