What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
115 Comments
- chrismwood, on 11/02/2009, -10/+108That's right, people. Let's protect the right of child-abusers to have children.
The people who are willing to be paid off not to have children are people who shouldn't have them anyway. As I understand it, this is a voluntary procedure intended for people already convicted of child abuse. Nobody's forcing sterilization on anyone.
I get where the guy is coming from. Anyone who has ever had to remove an abused child from a home would understand. - garrettnb, on 11/03/2009, -3/+90Have none of you heard of the movie Idiocracy? This makes perfect sense to me actually.
- namslam, on 11/02/2009, -7/+63pretty messed up.....BUT.....how much we talkin??
- Kobainsghost1, on 11/03/2009, -1/+49Sounds good lets put Maury out of work
- hootie233, on 11/03/2009, -2/+43IT is not messed up its a great idea
- chickadigg, on 11/03/2009, -2/+34He's not paying poor people to not have kids. He is proposing to pay known child abusers not to have kids. THAT is how they decide who qualifies.
- cheddaro, on 11/03/2009, -1/+33He says what we've all been thinking...
I think it's an awesome idea. These people get some money to get back on their feet, and we aren't bringing thousands (millions?) of more kids into this world with no family, support, or hope for a life outside of poverty and prison. - lostmessiah, on 11/03/2009, -1/+32You know, it's really not a bad idea. I'd completely oppose any forced sterilization of anyone, but offering people a one time cash buy-out for their reproductive rights is totally okay by me. Hell, I had to pay $1000 bucks not long ago to have myself taken out of the gene pool.
- DulcetTone, on 11/03/2009, -0/+30Options never hurt anyone
- GregLoire, on 11/03/2009, -0/+29Not having kids is reward enough for me.
- rft3rd, on 11/03/2009, -1/+29HOLD ON!
No where in the story is there a mention of economic status. The submitter blatantly exaggerated the story headline.
The "underclass" they are talking abut are those who neglect and abuse children. Not an economic underclass such as poor or poverty stricken.
There are more ways that a person can neglect a child other than monetarily. They could be drug users or convicted abusers etc.
While the story does not bring economic factors into it, in the states we give out money left and right as a sort stipend to those who spit kids out all over the place. Which is the greater evil? I say paying them to NOT have kids is much more intelligent. - Bloodwine, on 11/03/2009, -4/+31It actually sounds like a pretty solid plan. There are poor people in the U.S. who keep having babies to get more government handouts. Either way we'd be wasting the money, but at least if we paid poor people to not have money, they wouldn't be abusing/neglecting/twisting innocent children in the process.
If adopted on a more global scale, it might put a dent in overpopulation. - bitweever, on 11/03/2009, -3/+28Well, we pay the poor TO have kids in this country...
- FormerBabby, on 11/03/2009, -5/+28Good. Having children while being poor is a stupid idea anyway.
- axb156, on 11/03/2009, -0/+18Looks like the main protesters are the people that would be out of a job if this idea materialized.
- nepidae, on 11/03/2009, -1/+19Anyone who says this is a bad idea has never lived in a ghetto before.These people are poor, have no idea what condoms are and let their spawn run around doing w/e the hell they want (usually stealing, selling drugs, etc). Its not fair to the children who grow up without any real parenting.
- Hetman, on 11/03/2009, -1/+17I am not really lower class however if someone wants to pay me not to have kids I am all for it. I mean how much we talking about now?
- eriamjh, on 11/03/2009, -5/+20This is a FANTASTIC idea. We're constantly subsidizing the lower class, and this is more of an "investment" than a "handout"
- Bloodwine, on 11/03/2009, -2/+14There are poor people who keep having children for more government money or even for the notion that more kids = better chance one of them will make something of themselves and help the whole family.
I can't imagine many of those children having a good quality of life or even standing a decent chance of success, and ending up in the same rut as their parents. - Quaterni0n, on 11/03/2009, -0/+11Do they accept PayPal?
- Quaterni0n, on 11/03/2009, -2/+12Send him over here. I'll vote for him.
- Jektal, on 11/03/2009, -1/+11I agree, Information Technology really *is* a good idea.
- Funkleft, on 11/03/2009, -1/+10Hell I'm in favor of just adding a tax per child. I don't know if it should be flat percent based but I honestly think we'd be better off taxing people for having kids. Parents get breaks for having kids when simply having them increases the burden on the government via medical care and schooling and so on.
- cheddaro, on 11/03/2009, -1/+9I would say you should pay anyone that wants to sign up. Stop rewarding people for having children, and start rewarding them for not having children. That makes much more sense.
- tyrulz, on 11/03/2009, -0/+8this is awesome
- Zihuatanejo, on 11/03/2009, -0/+8You are NOT the father...here's your check.
- Quaterni0n, on 11/03/2009, -1/+8I don't see any ethics violation since it's purely voluntary.
- overridemymind, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6Well, to be fair -- if we want to prevent idiocracy, it's stupid people that shouldn't breed -- not poor people.
- hagfish, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6NZ$10,000 (about US$7000) for voluntary sterilisation was one figure that got waved around
- dha07030, on 11/03/2009, -1/+7People have children intentionally for the government support. I was walking to the store one day and over heard a conversation between two young lower class mothers. One who was pregnant tells the other something along the lines that her second kid will get her an extra "X" amount of money per month from the government. This was Jersey City NJ. Some what of a ghetto in parts.
- anonyjames, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5Title should read "Mayor proposes law paying child-abusers to not have kids".
These comments are stupid. - TyrelVnne, on 11/03/2009, -1/+6It's like sitting down and thinking how can i possible make the ***** situation i am in, even harder to get out of?
- detcade, on 11/03/2009, -1/+6Tiny religious population, and now this?! I love NZ!
The US desperately needs something like this. Keep the idiots from having children.. but not by force! - detcade, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5Why? It statistically keeps the uneducated from having children, therefore effectively increasing the collective intelligence of the population. And that is exactly what the world NEEDS right now.
- aeakers, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5Sterilization.
- mdwstmusik, on 11/03/2009, -3/+7I disagree. Giving someone an incentive not to reproduce and letting them decide, is not the same as preventing them from reproducing.
- anarcurt, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4There was a recent study stating that having a child gives you a 20x larger negative affect on your carbon footprint than any other factor.
"A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives — things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs."
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090803-chil ... - Jektal, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4Why not both?
- DrDragun, on 11/03/2009, -2/+6If you are even slightly environmentalist, you have to like this idea. Yeah we can all spend hours upon hours sorting our trash, driving mopeds, and living in 400 sq ft efficiency apartments so that we are 40% more environmentally efficient... OR we can all own a ***** lake with 3 jetskis and 2 hummers if there are 40% less people (and still have less threatened habitat land).
- Lonandubh, on 11/03/2009, -3/+7The problem, really, is that it looks like eugenics.
- VermiciousKnid, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3i know it's horrible, but I agree with this idea.
Derro's have derro kids who have derro kids, who are all burdens on society.
Don't work, don't try, violent, feel like society owes them everything, ruin neighborhoods, abuse their kids.
They're often either drunks or drug addicts.
Everyone of them, *****. - mhummel, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3As an Aussie, that sounds perfectly wonderful. We'll trade you Kevin, Wayne, Nicola, Steve, Chris and Barnaby. We'll even throw in Channel 9 so you too can have your very own lame Saturday night "variety" program. You could call it "Kia Ora: It's Saturday!"
- richmomz, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4Kind of depends... diggers for example typically don't engage in activities that lead to procreation :p
- Lonandubh, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2No, actually, it's that if such a person doesn't have children, there would be no children in the position to be abused... It Looks like it's trying to change the genes of the next generation, but it's simply an attempt to prevent abuses rather than simply cleaning up after them.
- ThantiK, on 11/03/2009, -5/+7If this happened in the USA/Europe - Everyone surfing Digg.com would be millionaires.
Yet they'd still be underclass. (No I did not read TFA) - ShingoEX, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3Sounds like a plan to me. Don't have kids if you're uneducated and can't afford to keep them.
"the Dominion-Post, interpreted his statements to mean that he wants all welfare recipients to be sterilized, which the mayor denies."
Interpreted by morons, you mean. What part of "voluntarily" means "mandatory"? These idiots who are twisting words are just the type of people who NEED to be sterilized. Idiots raising idiot kids are what we need less of. - SilverBlade2k, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3I think an even better idea is to have a "parents license". We license people to drive, use guns, use forklifts, but not to take care of children?
- Scottamus, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2And yet it's their favorite pastime.
- WakeRider, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2You are completely wrong, angusm, I am a Kiwi, and this statement from Michael Laws really does not surprise me. Do a bit of research, as well as being a Mayor, the guy is a well-known shock jock (He has been called NZ's version of Rush Limbaugh by his opponents) and he is very well known for being non-politically correct. He has strong backing from his town as he is tough on crime, especially gangs. He wrote a by-law to ban gang patches from Wanganui, the town he is mayor of. I agree with him on this issue, child abusers need to be sterilized.
- Tmoney645, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Lets all stop having children, the earth will be perfect once the Human population crashes into near extinction.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is