“there is a group within our society who give their children no hope nor opportunity from the moment that they are born”
“it would be far better for this appalling underclass to be offered financial inducements not to have children, given the toxic environment that they would provide for any child in their care.”
“If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said ‘we’ll voluntarily sterilise you’ then all of society would be better off,”
“There’d be less dead children and less social problems.”
The above quotes are the view of Michael Laws – a Mayor in New Zealand – who thinks ‘bad’ parents should be paid by the State NOT to have children.
Apart from reducing the numbers of children brought into the world to face a miserable existence – to be possibly abused and/or murdered – this move would save society a lot of money that would otherwise have to be spent on medical/social services to support these children -
“the consequent financial and social savings to our community would be considerable”
Reading some of the comments on the article reporting Mr Laws’s views, it is clear there a lot of people who share his views.
Hhhmm, wonder -
a. who’s going to make the decision as to whether or not someone is or is likely to be a ‘bad’ parent and should therefore be sterilised?
b. what criteria are Mr Laws and those who share his views proposing should be used to identify ‘bad’ parents ?
There’s a nasty, nasty smell of Nazi Germany in Mr Laws proposal. If we accept his logic and allow only ‘good’ people to have offspring, how soon for example before some fruitcase suggests sterilising all Muslims to prevent the birth of any offspring who might later grow up to become terrorists?
