pestman

No im afraid its you doing the 'implying' as it's quite clear what I wrote wasnt your 'spin' version of the word you used incorrectly.

Again it's not about preventing people from having children just because they are on a benifit because that could be most of us at some point in our life.

Quite clearly my opinion is based on those who are long term abusers of a system who persist in having more and more children while knowing that their situation is not going to change nor the income they are living on any more than by the extra benifit that they might get.

Im all for families and children but why not help them by using long term prevention in order that they might re train and better their future and that of their childrens.

To many like you are so 'rose tinted' that it's no wonder nothing will change.

Robbie2010

Whether you like it or not lardyl is correct. You are talking about Eugenics!

Charismatic

Good comment on the latter. That’s why we need to make them accountable for every decision, every pornographic DVD that goes on expenses and every time they fall asleep in the house on taxpayer time (that is those that even bother turning up).

As for politics...well....I wouldn’t make much ground in government service. I don’t do well at being PC and tend to highlight the inadequacies of others (usually a few well placed questions).

At least you know where you are with ChemE, calculations good or bad the laws of nature are self enforcing. No mistake goes unpunished whether it whispers the unabashed in your ear like a leaky valve or smothers you like an oil slick washing up on the pristine Florida sands. It tells the truth every time .

AH30

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/...active-smokers

Sorry Duke but I couldn't resist this one.

pestman

dont make me laugh!

You should read the definition of the word.

n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding

I never said anything about selective breeding in order to wipe out a particular race or talked of improving future children born into a particular family set.

My thoughts are on birth control,sterilization etc not for the removal of a set of people but as a way of helping those who cant cope with the children they have, from having anymore when they are not in a position to either afford to do so or want to do so.

or we could just keep the status quo and carry on as is if that makes you feel better. now then what fancy word can you find for me now.

Browner_

Absolutely right.
I dont believe there is any real poverty in NZ, the benefit system is too generous for that. The only poverty is in the peoples attitude.

Looking at NZ, it is clearly too easy a lifestyle choice for 'poorer' women to choose to have children (as single parents or not) and live off the state benefits.

As charismatic says, we need social welfare, but these people are given their own homes for nothing and plenty of other support besides. You dont have to be Einstein to work out that the children brought up in these environments may not be as progressive as those born to the hard-working parents who choose to have only one or two children (if any) because they are more concerned about how they are brought up and how much effort and money they are going to have to put into it.

Eugenics may be a touchy subject, but the point is that the product of the social policies that are currently in place will be catastrophic. The trashy are breeding quicker than the intelligent, like it or not.

Going back to benefits, we all need such support to help us through crisis times like unemployment. But after a period, Im sorry that support is going to have to reduce so that means the boat goes, the car goes, you sell your house and adjust to lower circumstances. We cant be expected to provide detached house, car and clothes for everybody.

There must be greater incentives to become self-reliant, get a better job, and not breed until you can support the child properly.

simonsi

The trouble is that is just one decision that people in a free society are able to make, for good or bad. Once that decision is taken away from people (who decides who gets to make that decision for themselves and who doesn´t), there will no doubt be another one that "must be controlled for the greater good". And that, my friend is an unstoppable slippery slope to an Orwellian society, whether claiming to be "helping them" or not....

No thanks, I´ll fight the imposition of that sort of society all the way.

simonsi

Absolutely, but compulsory sterilisation has too many collateral consequences... for everyone.

Robbie2010

You spoke about sterilizing people who you considered were "unfit to be parents"!

Which is ... Eugenics!

If you not bright enough to understand that then I suggest you get a better dictionary.

pestman

Ok.

Bored of this now as it's turning into a 'he said she said' post so in order not to take over the whole thread this is my final post on this thread.(bar the below reply that is!)

It is quite clear where my thoughts are in relation to the 'sterilization' of certain parents and again it's quite clear to me that you have the wrong understanding of the word you used.

Sterilization for 'birth control' ISNT the same as using eugenics to weed out an entire gene pool,race or nation which is what the word you are using is all about. By your definition every form of control from a condom to the pill would then all come under the one banner of 'eugenics' which of course it dosnt.

So please stop trying to skewer my opinions to opinions based on the word that I would NEVER think a valid option.

You must be great at scrabble

feel free to have the final word as this is mine.

pestman

fair enough point but then dont we allready make such choices for people in all walks of life such as who can and cant have sex at what age,who can fight in a war but not drink,who can give birth at 60-70 but cant adopt and so on.

I dont see it as taking away a choice from a person but helping them.

Lets not get to caught up in the 'sterilization' side I agree an extreme measure and not one I advocate for all bar the extreme cases.As for what is an 'extreme' case I agree a difficult and possibly slippery slope so again I agree maybe not the right option.

My point was based on the poverty and suffering that we see many children suffering at which point I feel the so called 'future' parents loose their right to keep re producing just because they can.

good debate but like politics a non winner.

lardyl

Thanks mate

I too love the sound of back pedalling in the morning....LOL

Ever seen the stuffed corpse of John Stuart Mill, he resides at Kings (?) College, London - or so I was told when I was taking a course on Moral Philosophy at Uni.

read something on Utilitarianism Mr Pesty-Mann, you might find it to your liking....

bdclayton

I love the sound of the "when i was at Uni" Brigade morning or evening
leave your upper class Kings College back in the UK,
everyone has a right to a opinion if they went to "UNI" or not
and i don't agree with Pestmans.

jmh

It's Jeremy Bentham who is stuffed and on display at University College London: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham

pestman

No back pedalling here...LOL its your poor understanding of the word not my thoughts that are changing!

Big words dont make a big man but again keep on with the scrabble you will do well with a word like Utilitarianism MR Lardi darly