Unpopular Opinions.

The King of Moo · 19-02-2012 9:01pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

So much wrong here, so I'll focus on one thing. Which problems do these people cause, and are they among the most pressing?

Collie D · 19-02-2012 9:01pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Indeed...seems a right cúntish opinion to be honest. I'm attacking the opinion here, not the opinion holder.

steddyeddy · 19-02-2012 9:02pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Well Ill invite you to expand on your opinion. You can start with your definition of lower class?

pragmatic1 · 19-02-2012 9:04pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

I'd say the "fathers" have more to answer for tbh. Most of the single mothers I know are trying their best. Its the scumbags they have kids with that cause most of their problems.

Sean Bateman · 19-02-2012 9:05pm

It's a controversial suggestion.

However, there's no "right to life" aspect to it as we're not talking about abortion.

It's purely for the spongers who have children just to make money.

It'd cut future crime in my view but it's obviously extreme...touch of the Dr Mengeles about it!

Sean Bateman · 19-02-2012 9:07pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Ill invite you to expand on your opinion. You can start with your definition of lower class?

Hard to define concisely.

People who've opted out of society and have no respect for society?

steddyeddy · 19-02-2012 9:08pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Hard to define concisely.

People who've opted out of society and have no respect for society?

From your opinion that would seem to include you.

Mike 1972 · 19-02-2012 9:19pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of your proposal from a social standpoint In medical terms it would be akin to amputating both of a persons legs to treat an ingrown toenail ?

Sean Bateman · 19-02-2012 9:21pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of your proposal from a social standpoint In medical terms it would be akin to amputating both of a persons legs to treat an ingrown toenail ?

Can something be done chemically?

The aim would be to make these women voluntarily become infertile...if that can be done by less invasive means, then so be it.

The King of Moo · 19-02-2012 9:32pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Can something be done chemically?

The aim would be to make these women voluntarily become infertile...if that can be done by less invasive means, then so be it.

Ideally you'd want it done before they have their first child, wouldn't you?

Maybe you could sterilise all women below a certain income?

Because there's just no way the child of a single mother can make anything of themselves, so why allow even one to be born?

Seomra Mushie · 19-02-2012 9:39pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Shades of eugenics to this post.

Nodin · 19-02-2012 9:51pm

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

I've bolded the bit that gives me some comfort.

Mike 1972 · 19-02-2012 10:21pm

The King of Moo wrote: »

Ideally you'd want it done before they have their first child, wouldn't you?

Maybe you could sterilise all women below a certain income?

Err Most females of early childbearing age tend to have little or no income.

Even women who are working may experience periods of illness/unemployment/study/part time working

And why just focus on women what about men too ?

I know lets sterilise everybody :eek:

The King of Moo · 19-02-2012 10:26pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Err Most females of early childbearing age tend to have little or no income.

Even women who are working may experience periods of illness/unemployment/study/part time working

And why just focus on women what about men too ?

I know lets sterilise everybody :eek:

I've thought this through you see: lots of single mothers come from poor families so sterilising poor women will make sure they don't have daughters who might become single mothers.

But I agree it's not enough and support your solution. It's the only way we can be sure of getting all the scumbags.

Mike 1972 · 19-02-2012 10:34pm

The King of Moo wrote: »

But I agree it's not enough and support your solution. It's the only way we can be sure of getting all the scumbags.

Would it not be quicker and more effective to Just kill everybody cant be too careful after all............

The King of Moo · 19-02-2012 10:48pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Would it not be quicker and more effective to Just kill everybody cant be too careful after all............

You're right. Look at it this way: if we kill everyone, we can know for sure that we'll get all the dole scroungers, single mothers, foreigners, and dole-scrounging single foreign mothers.

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in...

psychward · 19-02-2012 11:09pm

The King of Moo wrote: »

You're right. Look at it this way: if we kill everyone, we can know for sure that we'll get all the dole scroungers, single mothers, foreigners, and dole-scrounging single foreign mothers.

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in...

Actually (and this surely is a very sinister topic which I can only deal with jokingly) it would be much fairer to let them all live and give them every opportunity and chance at happiness etc in an ''ideal'' and fair society but once they commit a serious crime ... turn the ingrates into fertiliser immediately

This way we don't pick on anyone due to an accident of their birth and we can also punish bankers , politicians and those with a silver spoon in their mouths who harm society while having grown up with every advantage possible thereby having even fewer excuses...

Mike 1972 · 19-02-2012 11:09pm

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in...

Errr I think youre not fully grasping the consequences of this kill everyone idea ?

The King of Moo · 19-02-2012 11:11pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Errr I think youre not fully grasping consequences of this kill everyone idea

Well there has to be a drawback, but I'll willing to make the sacrifice in order to make a world where my children can... oh.

:pac:

Mike 1972 · 19-02-2012 11:19pm

psychward wrote: »

but once they commit a serious crime ... turn the ingrates into fertiliser immediately

How serious ?

Are we talking about being three days late renewing their car tax or mass genocide ?

psychward · 19-02-2012 11:35pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

How serious ?

Are we talking about being three days late renewing their car tax or mass genocide ?

We should probably pilot the scheme on those who try to impose unfair disproportionate car taxes and take it from there.

Greentopia · 20-02-2012 10:44pm

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

That is what I feel should happen yes. (Why would anybody want to keep a badly badly disabled child though?)

I wouldn't and you evidently wouldn't but what you're suggesting is unconscionable IMO.

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Nobody benefits from that arrangement except perhaps a selfish woman who wants a baby no matter what and be damned the awful life it will have to live.

Perhaps, but unless you want to go down the road of creating laws as you're suggesting that fit in more with a totalitarian or fascist hell hole than a democracy where people's human rights are valued then we have to respect people's rights in this matter.

I really hope it's that you're just not thinking this issue through enough to realise the implications of what you're saying

Greentopia · 20-02-2012 10:52pm

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I'd say the "fathers" have more to answer for tbh. Most of the single mothers I know are trying their best. Its the scumbags they have kids with that cause most of their problems.

Thank you for saying that. I wish more people here would realise that instead of continually spewing their bile on these women, as if they get pregnant by miraculous conception!

Mike 1972 · 25-02-2012 10:32am

Sean Bateman wrote: »

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Nodin wrote: »

I've bolded the bit that gives me some comfort.

Its certainly is not a line I would be using on a new lady friend whom I had just met and was seeking to impress !

Pandora2 · 25-02-2012 11:42am

Having lived in the UK during the '80's when Maggie was doing her thing and shamelessly widening the class divide, by creating Sink Estates....full of unemployed and poorly educated citizens, I believe The Jeremy Kyle generation was hothoused!!

These no go areas are stuffed full of people with few opportunities educationally or otherwise, deprived of social inclusion and fed on a diet of Corrie, Eastenders & whatever else the media spews forth:eek:

Think about it......life outside their own front door is Shameless then they turn on the telly and at any given time neighbours are getting it on with the one next door, couples are plotting murder and all sorts of deceitful, criminal and obnoxious behaviour. Everyone goes to the pub 2/3 times a day.......children are precocious and resilient and recover from any imaginable disaster/terror/abuse (Case in point: Simon in Corrie!! That kid should be in deep, deep therapy!!) Couples are here today, gone tomorrow......tug of love situations are normal.............it's OK to shag your sister's ex...the list is endless and much of it happens in a Country Village, an Eastend Square, a Street in Manchester and I'm not sure what goes on in Hollyoaks but I'm guesssing by my 16 year old.....it's pretty raunchy:eek::eek::eek:

So my humble opinion is that poverty, lack of education, politicians & the media are responsible for The Jeremy Kyle Generation!! They know nothing different!!

Pandora2 · 25-02-2012 11:53am

Sean Bateman wrote: »

A lot of society's problems are caused by the offspring of "single mothers" - i.e. lower working class women that have children purely to sponge off the State.

My solution is to offer this type of woman a grant to have a hysterectomy.

Give them what they want - Cash for their wombs.

Purge their uteri and you'll purge a significant amount of future crime.

I've suggested this "down the pub" and it's not a popular opinion to put it mildly.

Another man with womb envy!! Seriously, your opinion truly belongs in this thread!!

Mike 1972 · 25-02-2012 11:56am

Pandora2 wrote: »

The Jeremy Kyle Generation!!

I always considered Jeremy Kyle closer to the genre of soap than documentary

Pandora2 · 25-02-2012 12:05pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I always considered Jeremy Kyle closer to the genre of soap than documentary

My point exactly!!

WallysWorld · 25-02-2012 2:02pm

Duncan Stewart is the only "celeb" Rte has ever produced that I find remotely watchable, I'm not sure why that is...

Skylinehead · 25-02-2012 2:07pm

WallysWorld wrote: »

Duncan Stewart is the only "celeb" Rte has ever produced that I find remotely watchable, I'm not sure why that is...

Because Duncan's a legend! :cool:

Unpopular Opinions.

Comments