Mayor proposes paying parents not to breed
New Zealand mayor provokes outrage by suggesting that government should pay 'problem parents' not to have children.
By Stephanie RogersMon, Nov 02 2009 at 2:37 PM EST
28
Photo: Refracted Moments/Flickr One New Zealand politician believes child abuse is such a big problem in the country that “problem parents” should be paid not to reproduce.
|
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More |
Earn Points
What's this? |
Mayor Michael Laws says there would be “less dead children and less social problems” if known criminals were paid to be voluntarily sterilized.
"There is a group within our society who give their children no hope nor opportunity from the moment that they are born,” Laws wrote on the website of a New Zealand radio station where he is a talk DJ.
"That these ‘parents’ are known to authorities ... and yet the authorities can only intervene after children have been harmed. 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."
Laws’ comments provoked a firestorm of outrage after a local newspaper, the Dominion-Post, interpreted his statements to mean that he wants all welfare recipients to be sterilized, which the mayor denies.
New Zealand is third among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations for child deaths due to maltreatment, and fifth for both child beatings and sexual abuse. Despite these statistics, child welfare advocates don't share Laws' views on how to improve them.
"I just find it such a disgraceful attitude,'' said Janfrie Wakim, director of Child Poverty Action Group. "It's hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who's leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.''
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
CLOSE
link:
link:
Comments
Stevo
11/07/2009 12:29 PM
Just offer $10,000 for sterilization to anyone. Anyone who would look at that money as being better than having kids probably should be sterilized. That takes away all the aggravation and hand wringing about whether it's ethical, or government should dicatate. No dictation--just a cash offer. It only applies to those under the age of 35.
Karey
Today 09:30 AM
There's opportunity for it to be exploited. Want some cash from the government? Have a kid, abuse the tar out of it, get kid taken away, get $ to not have any more. There's not much pre-emptive about this; in order for the family to be eligible for this cash incentive, they have to be already treating children wrongly.
superchicken
Today 07:42 AM
I think it's refreshing to hear this kind of clear headed thinking for a change. The truth is that such a policy should be expanded far beyond the scope suggested. There are people that simply should not be allowed to legally reproduce.
Guest
11/03/2009 23:15 PM
Why shouldn't crack mom who burns the baby with cigarettes be sterilized? And the list goes on from here.
Inexistencia
11/03/2009 17:34 PM
Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. It also depends on the means of resources used and distributed throughout the population. If a given environment has a population of 10 individuals, but there is food or drinking water enough for only 9, then in a closed system where no trade is possible, that environment is overpopulated since population numbers is still in excess of food production..... More
Rache
11/06/2009 08:39 AM
Don't adoption agencies do this very thing though? Assess your "suitability" to adopt based on your background and financial history and stability?? Nobody calls them Nazis though?
An adoption agency can turn away a skanky benefit claiming couple with a ropey background on the grounds they are "unsuitable" yet that same couple could go home and have their own baby and nobody will remove it from them because they are "unsuitable". It's double standards.
Historian
11/03/2009 17:33 PM
The application of eugenics is ultimately detrimental for the long term survival of the species. You want the greatest diversity possible in the gene pool so that species continuation is assured.
What if a lethal pandemic occurred, and only individuals with a particular genetic marker were immune? Sound far fetched? What about malaria and sickle cell anemia?
Eugenics programs in the US in the early 20th century led to the mass sterilization of the mentally incompetent. The results.... More
AIR
Today 21:07 PM
Humans are so close genetically that it wouldn't be an issue in any way. There's close to 7 billion people on the planet and our genetics are 99.99999999999% the same same between us all so having a few people not breed isn't going to affect a thing in terms of our genetic survivability.
RR
Today 00:19 AM
What good is having "the greatest diversity possible in the gene pool so that species continuation is assured" when it comes at the price of having a gene pool filled with stupid people? I'd rather we take our chances breeding only the best and have a pandemic wipe us all out than have to spend so much as a day surrounded by people who think their children are their welfare ticket.
Sheree
11/03/2009 16:33 PM
When the person has already proven themselves to be a deadbeat parent or is convicted of crimes against the defenseless, I think it would be a great idea to withhold all their 'welfare'-type government benefits until they are sterilized.
Guest
11/03/2009 15:51 PM
Somehow sounds familiar..
colin
11/03/2009 15:37 PM
He's not suggesting genetic factors be the reason for not having children. Comparing the idea to what the Nazi's tried to accomplish is just ignorant.
Loxodonta
11/03/2009 15:24 PM
To all those closet Nazi's who think this is a good idea. It's only a good until they single you out! Too fat? too tall? Too many freckles? Blonde & blue eyed (considered to be a weak gene compared to dark eyes & hair) where do you draw the line...?
Guest
11/03/2009 15:30 PM
It's quite easy to draw the line. You draw the line by those people with a history of violent crime, particularly that crime which is directed at vulnerable individuals.
Aaron
11/03/2009 14:48 PM
I've thought about this for awhile and while in theory I think eugenics is a good idea, practically it usually slides down that slippery slope way too fast. Instead of 'forcing' high risk groups to sterilize you reward them for not being a burden on society thus making it voluntary and a win for people that never wanted children probably helping them lead better/more productive lives. To those that want to have children, there is no punishment for them.
It's an interesting discussion.... More
Guest
11/03/2009 14:45 PM
It's unfortunate that the slums of our nation are kept afloat by those who work. I'm tired of paying for detritus and expect nothing more than America melting down if it continues for longer than it has already...with this new administration, it scorns those who work hard and try to help themselves to be better...the new motto seems to be, "why work when the government will pay for everything you want." Pay them no more than what they are getting for free. You learn very important life.... More
Guest
11/03/2009 14:38 PM
I think it's a good idea too, we can sit back and let the population get to 9 billion. The earth just can not sustain. I'm not a criminal but I do realize that we live in a time where there are to many people so I would gladly take a pay check not to have kids.
James
11/03/2009 14:32 PM
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it
Don
11/03/2009 14:30 PM
Once everyone is comfortable with this approach, we can then move onto other topics as .... your ugly you shouldn't breed or man you show no potential you shouldn't breed either.
Rather than shoving the issue of violence, etc under the rug why don't we as a society, via the government, try to break the root of the problem. To blame genes alone is pure folly.
Tristan
11/03/2009 14:57 PM
Yeah, we should do that. People with bad genes shouldn't breed, because it's not kind to the children or the population as a whole. If you knew without a doubt that by mating with your wife you would produce a child with a congenital heart defect that would require a heart transplant by the age of 18 to avoid premature death, would you still have the child? To say yes is absolutely preposterous, because you can adopt a perfectly healthy child and get the benefits of being a family without the.... More
Guest
11/03/2009 14:29 PM
I think this is an awesome idea, we need to finally do something with population controll
Guest
11/03/2009 14:23 PM
I would much rather have people who can barely take care of themselves have a bunch of children. That is the better idea.
Guest
11/03/2009 14:20 PM
People with high levels of Criminal activity shouldn't breed anyway, I don't know if I'd pay them so much as maybe offer a % off their jail time if they were to be sterilized. Thus saving the government money instead of having it cost more.
It costs $30,000 (roughly) to house an inmate in a jail for one year. Offer a year or two off of a person's 20 year sentence and they still serve plenty of time and the government can put that 30-60K towards the deficit.
alirg
11/03/2009 14:15 PM
Sterilize criminals... seems like two things that go together.
dirk
11/03/2009 14:12 PM
The earth is already over-populated. This is a great idea. I think the outrage probably comes from people who think that procreation is the purpose of life. It's a concepts taught in many religions that is extremely dangerous to our survival as a species on this planet.
Mike
11/03/2009 15:23 PM
I agree completely; if people would just think for a minute instead of blindly following their religious beliefs maybe this will happen. There are way to many people already, cutting down on the population is a good thing.
Guest
11/03/2009 14:04 PM
This is actually a good idea. Why the outrage?
