Is it moral to pay problem parents not to have kids?

I guess someone thinks its a good idea.

Pay problem parents not to breed - mayor | World News | News.com.au

__________________
To know all is to forgive all.

No, it's not moral to do that. They should be teaching responsibility.
Thanks,
TT

__________________
The Bible states that those who fornicate (living that lifestyle) will not inherit the Kingdom of God be it between homosexuals or men and woman who are not married. (Gal 5:19-21).
Again, I urge anyone who supports homosexual marriage to repent of their sin.

it's incredibly pompous. There is none perfect, NONE. The pompousness of this is astounding. Makes me wanna do this---->

__________________

"Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil."
~1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

posted by ViaCrucis:
It's not even "too much Old Testament", in the Old Testament God is compassionate, shows mercy, is patient and long-suffering. Consider the lesson we learn from Jonah, or the word delivered to Ezekiel that God does not desire the death of the wicked, that God takes no pleasure or joy in the destruction of the wicked by desires that that the wicked repent and change their ways so they might live and have life. God has always been a merciful, compassionate, kind and patient God who has no desire for the destruction of the wicked, who has loving-kindness for the sinner and for the wicked person to change their ways and truly live and have life. -CryptoLutheran

On the other hand it's like that line from the movie Parenthood: "You know, you have to get a license to drive, to hunt, heck you have to get a license to own a dog, but they'll let any old so and so be a father..."

not the same thing as paying someone to not have children. The more despicable of the two is the one paying. How pompous.

__________________

"Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil."
~1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

posted by ViaCrucis:
It's not even "too much Old Testament", in the Old Testament God is compassionate, shows mercy, is patient and long-suffering. Consider the lesson we learn from Jonah, or the word delivered to Ezekiel that God does not desire the death of the wicked, that God takes no pleasure or joy in the destruction of the wicked by desires that that the wicked repent and change their ways so they might live and have life. God has always been a merciful, compassionate, kind and patient God who has no desire for the destruction of the wicked, who has loving-kindness for the sinner and for the wicked person to change their ways and truly live and have life. -CryptoLutheran

I have a very simple answer to this. Make only people who have school aged children pay taxes to support public schools.

People who do not mind paying taxes will capitulate, and those that don't will think twice before having any children or another one... It's really that simple.

I am not going to have children (by choice) so being paid for it would be fantastic.

I don't think money will stop those who want to have children so it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

__________________

It's a typically short-sighted response from a politician. Create a massive problem in the system through greed and incompetence, then blame the victim for it (the so called 'underclass'). Seems people fall for it though.

What we need to do is work out ways to get the next generation wanting to work, so they're not spending their lives claiming benefits and turning to crime. That involves too much work though for some lazy politicians.

I say it is moral.

However, there is a problem, and it is twofold: first, who gets to decide who is a 'problem parent'? Second, from whom is the money taken? The tax-payer?

If you could overcome those problems, which I doubt, I don't see any reason to discourage 'bad' parents from having kids. After all, everyone wins, and no one is detrimentally affected.

__________________
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

I would say there are more problems. The politician made reference to the "apalling underclass", and paying $10,000 to having them voluntarily sterilised. Once you've established who the "appalling underclass" are, you're essentially telling them that they're not good enough for society. What hope will they have now of making something of themselves, when they've been told this? Even worse when some of them turn down the offer and have kids, their children will quickly work out that society would have rather they were never born.

Looking up in wikipedia, the underclass has been split into the following groups:

the passive poor, usually long term welfare recipients;
the hostile street criminal, drop-outs, low-class prostitutes, and drug addicts;
the hustlers, dependent on the underground economy, but rarely involved in violent crime;
the traumatised drunks, drifters, homeless bag ladies, and released mental patients.

Looking at that list, what most these people need is a bit of help, and are being let down by a lack of support and/or jobs. Offering them money to get sterilised is not a positive suggestion in my opinion. Helping them and their children have hopes, dreams, a sense of work ethic and aspirations would be better.

If policies such as these, which is essentially eugenics, become accepted by the public, who knows what is next? It's a dangerous path to go down I think, and while maybe not as extreme, shares similar ideals to Hitler's Nazi regime.