Poor people do not deserve children, says moron.

Moron
A Tory councillor who suggested parents on benefits should be compulsorily sterilised has resigned.

John Ward was suspended from Medway Council's Conservative Group after a row over controversial comments he made on his personal website.

In a blog entry, Ward attacked those who he claimed "breed for greed".

He said the mother of missing schoolgirl Shannon Matthews, who has had seven children by five fathers, was an example of "Breakdown Britain".

Mr Ward has admitted his comments were "unfortunately worded".

He said: "The idea was to stimulate a debate looking into ways of tackling the situation without anything as drastic as that.

"It obviously didn't work out right. I've had a couple of complaints from people who've been offended by it. I apologise if it has caused offence."

Rodney Chambers, Medway Council's Tory leader said Mr Ward's comments were "deplorable".

"As leader of the Conservative Group I have always stated that I expect all members to demonstrate and uphold the highest standards in public office and public life," he said.

"Councillor Ward has been suspended forthwith from the Conservative Group pending consideration of this matter by the full Group at its earliest opportunity."

A Conservative Central Office spokesman said: "These remarks are abhorrent and the Conservative Party disassociates itself from them."

You know, because people claiming benefits are all cheating the system and are such lazy bastards. It's not as if it's possible to be fired or be to poor to afford the education to get a decent job. The notion that jobs might not be available at all is just completely absurd. And of course, the children of poor parents, such as myself, couldn't have born while the parent in question was gainfully employed, no, that's just ridiculous.

I do agree that benefit fraud is a horrible thing, and that benefits should be regulated a lot more carefully, but this is just the stupidest thing. I mean, wouldn't just cutting of benefits after a certain of children be a much better solution? It'd be cheaper as well.

Even if he didn't mean it, like he tries to convince us, it's such a bloody stupid thing to say. I realise that councillor isn't a position worth two wet farts, but how the hell did he even manage to get that far when he says things like this?

You know they just upped the estimate for raising a kid from pregnancy to college again and I have to say that the cost and responsibility parenting has continued to keep me away.

I do sometimes wonder at people who are as poor as me spitting kids out like they were cherry pits. I personally don't want my kids to grow up poor and disadvantaged like I did, because that is a major sin in this world, it realistically brings down the wrath of society on your head. While I think forced sterilization is a bit Swiftian, I do think that having multiple children with multiple partners out of wedlock shows a fundamental lack of respect or concern for the children of such unions, and as such should be considered a form of child neglect.

After all owning a gun doesn't mean you are allowed to run around shooting people will-nilly(unless you're Carles Bronson) so owning reproductive organs shouldn't entitle you to blast out litters of kids who from day one must rely on public assistance to survive, just cause you can.

He honestly thought that saying "Sterilise the poor!" wouldn't cause people to take offense? Sometimes, I wonder how people as ignorant of their surroundings as this man seems to be get anywhere in life.

Even if he says he didn't mean it, my first thought when I read the article was "Hey, isn't forced sterilisation something that the Nazis did?". Not calling on Godwin's Law or anything - this guy's just a stupid politician - but the whole forced sterilisation is something I've always associated with the Nazi regime.

Benefit fraud is a huge problem, because it undermines the system and makes trouble for people who are honestly in deep need of it, but there has got to be a better way of starting a debate than this. Also, laying the blame squarely on the benefit-takers undermines the debate.

Custard Trout
how the hell did he even manage to get that far when he says things like this?

Hey, when you look at the idiots in Parliament, it's perfectly logical that the level of idiocy at local level should be even greater.

This all reminds me of the Dead Kennedys song "Kill the Poor"
Unfortunately some people look at solutions in the wrong way. It may not be as drastic as killing the poor but even still, just because someone is poor doesn't mean they chose to be and have children to recieve more money. My thoughts have pretty much been stated above. To be honest..it didn't surprise me the guy was conservative..That could just be my own ignorant mind set though.

Um wow. Ok I believe in charity. I know that many are forced to live on welfare. I was forced to eat on a handout before. I also know that social workers often tell poor single mothers to have more children in order to collect more money. Welfare state thinking, and widespread benefit fraud are major problems. but the idea of outside agencies (especially governments) controlling a person's reproductive rights is inherently repulsive. Having been poor and made a better life for myself, those around me, and my posterity, I find this concept despicable.

The idea was to stimulate a debate...

Idiots in Britain particularly use that line quite a lot to justify the most vile statements... From politicians, to comedians, to media personalities and journalists. You really have to wonder. -_-

(we have people making those statements and much worse ALL OVER the entire globe, but in Britain the "stimulate debate" justifications seems a particularly popular defence)

imshard
I also know that social workers often tell poor single mothers to have more children in order to collect more money

You should have said you were only saying that to "stimulate debate". lol!

ozoneocean

imshard
I also know that social workers often tell poor single mothers to have more children in order to collect more money

You should have said you were only saying that to "stimulate debate". lol!

Actually I've heard it in person, on more than than one occasion, from more than one social worker, to many many people. I don't advocate it. Its just a fact that gaming the system is a widespread affliction.

Heh. he said it all so horribly, but in a weird way I guess I can see where he was coming from, even though I don't basically agree with his methods.

After all, there's people in every system abusing everything... from the mothers who purposely lie about being on birth control or poking holes in condoms so that they can leech child support off those men, etc... to the mothers who get pregnant to get more support money off the government.

so I wouldn't be surprised if there was stupid, horrible social workers actually telling poor mothers to get pregnant again so that they could leech off the government.

But of course this doesn't apply to all poor people at all... so I think the problem actually lies in addressing on how to fix the problem of corrupt people abusing "the system". Whenever it might be social workers giving out bad advice, or the the poor people who's only poor because they want to look for a way to make quick bucks even if it means getting pregnant.

Oh.. and Bobhhh, I couldn't help but notice that you seemed to talk about unwed people popping out babies as if they were the only ones who did it.

Shouldn't MARRIED people doing the same be considered child negligent too? Especially if they couldn't afford to, and still continued to breed without birth control?

Just pointing out some of your wording there. :P

People are going to breed.

People are going to be careless and become pregnant when they breed.

People are going to try to find ways to support their kids once they have them.

Instead of sterilizing them, the councilor should have thought more about education mandates for the mothers and more job placement agencies as well as enforcement of laws that make a father, once so identified, as responsible legally for the financial support of the child. Persons who enter such programs yet CONTINUE to breed irresponsibly SHOULD be given a warning, perhaps, that if they have one more child, all benefits will be cut off for a period of time.

Forced sterilization is something communist China still practices. it doesn't seem to be working there, either.

People are going to breed.

Seems like such a modest proposal.

Sounds like a good scenario for a dystopian comic book plot.

If you apply this to something like sterilizing pedophiles, people with severe mental disorders, and violent criminals it doesn't sound so bad.

Skullbie
If you apply this to something like sterilizing pedophiles, people with severe mental disorders, and violent criminals it doesn't sound so bad.

Sure. but that wont still stop those people from having children one way or other in more than one way. Remember, the regular intercourse isn't the only way to have a child.... thanks to technology.

and then think of it from this viewpoint:
What about the people out there who were able to hide their criminal side pretty well, and actually had an "clean record" because of not leaving evidence behind for a long time? Sure, they eventually get caught... but do they get caught before they start "breeding"? Not always.

So when they do get caught, a lot of them already have children. Which makes the idea of having a law to sterilizing all criminals and dangerous people, completely pointless.

And.... while criminal pedophiles wouldn't be able to impregnate women, I doubt that would faze them that much. After all, I've heard of sterile men having normal sex drives in their marriages.The same with sterile women. So an pedophile wouldn't mind at all as long as he/she could just find some other ways to gain access to children and sexually abuse them. Where there's a will, there's a way. :P

and.... I also have to point that while there's still a very small amount of them, there still exists pedophiles who *gasp* DON'T molest children or want to. They just find themselves sexually attracted to children because of troubled pasts where they were abused themselves as children.

Of course, not all sexually assaulted people turn into criminals as seeing more than half of those people had families and people who was helping them out, supporting them, etc. But for the rest... sometimes help or awareness of the situation wasn't there in time at all to prevent the mental scars from becoming too deep that it became almost impossible to fix? This type of pedophile is very much aware of his/her feelings, but unlike other pedophiles who have such deep mental problems, he/she is much aware that it's very wrong and tends to often try to get help with this problem.

But because of such massive prejudices toward pedophiles (which I can see why it would be justified in a way), they can't really talk to anybody at all... because of the massive amounts of ignorance that people have regarding knowledge about how pedophilia gets started, created, etc.

This type of pedophile is basically a normal person who was simply abused in the past, and is unable to have normal relationships with people their own age because of it. They're trying to get help for it... and you say all pedophiles should be sterilized like they're all mindless animals?

the same with people who has mental disorders. Not all people with mental disorders are violent or so crazy in a way where they would be unable to raise a child safely in a healthy home. Yes, a lot of them are "incurable", but with a lot of work, effort and medication they can actually look like healthy and functional human beings. you should seriously look up the list of mental disorders, and read all the details on each one to see how it affects a person. You'd be surprised at how a lot of them don't give the people out there any "defects" that would make them a danger to children or to the society at large.

Like the social anxiety disorder, for instance. This is gained by the lack of of a social home from the moment you're a infant. They don't learn all the right ways to socially interact... and as an result, they might become targets of bullies, etc. So they turn into adults who become exactly nervous every time they have to interact with somebody. Even the thought of going out for grocery shopping throws them into a fit of panic. but with medication, therapy, training... this can be brought under control for some time, and they can interact with others fine for a time. Is this honestly the kind of person who would be so dangerous to children and society at large? I've heard of mothers who had this disorder, and they were able to start slowly learning to get over some of their fears because they had regular interactions with their own children on a regular basis, and had to do things for them.

Violent criminals...I can see your reasoning with this, but as I pointed out... a lot of those could had easily had children many times before they got discovered as an violent criminal.

imshard
Actually I've heard it in person, on more than than one occasion, from more than one social worker, to many many people. I don't advocate it. Its just a fact that gaming the system is a widespread affliction.

Ummm... That's not gaming this system, that's being a f*****g moron. Social workers don't suggest having more kids to cheat the system, only inveterate imbeciles do, and only a twit would believe that people could ever cheat the system that way.
-If an inveterate imbecile happens to also have a social working job, don't let that reflect on all social workers, every profession has a couple of chuckleheads. ;)

Ya see... the trouble with that stupid equation is that it's not a simple one like this: Have a kid, get heaps of free cash! Repeat.
Having children is HARD. For a start the woman's body starts to function abnormally in various and many different unpleasant ways for her for the better part of a year. Her quality of life is severely diminished towards the end. her life is put at risk in the latter stages, dangerously so during the birth.
After she actually HAS the child, there is all the trouble to care for it, emotional distress, changing her life around the thing in order to support it... Even just the barest, most off-hand care is still quite a big thing for someone to manage. And the more children someone has, the bigger the strain on their lives and those around them.

Cash is such a minuscule (but important), part of all that. But getting more cash when you have more kids would only be a small help to get by.

You guys hang out with very different poor people than the ones I hang out with.

We're all rich and don't know any real poor people. :)
I think I saw one on the side of the road once, but I was instructing my chauffeur at the time so I might have been mistaken...

--------------------
Seriously though, I've only known one single family that was reasonably poor AND had a lot of kids. But they managed ok- One of my Aunts. Her family is a whole tribe :)
But they managed well enough. Uncle Wonbon is Aboriginal, and they've always had a rough time of it in our country, but he managed to provide for his family well enough, along with my aunt. Although they did need support at times. All the kids grew up fine and are doing pretty well, the last I heard. (I never keep in touch with cousins).

Apart from them, I don't know about these magical poor families with heaps of kids. I think it actually tends to be a culture specific thing and not really a socio-economic one per-se. Which points to two things:
1.- they'd have the same amount of kids no matter how much they earned.
2. -It's more likely cultural factors that contribute to where they find themselves more than anything else. Much like the Untouchables in India were status is set by birth into your caste, but more unofficial and not stated:
The people bred out of the trailer parks in the US, African American and Latino populations in certain areas as well, and not to forget the native Americans. In Britain travellers are a classic example, as they are throughout Europe where they're called Gypsy, Romany and Roma. In Australia the native aboriginal people are still in that position.

StaceyMontgomery
You guys hang out with very different poor people than the ones I hang out with.

This probably because I am an actual poor person.

Now where's Jeeves with my blasted caviare?