larrygrylls
You rude, rude and very wrong little man (or is it woman?). That is probably the single most personally offensive post I've ever read on mumsnet. By all means disagree with Julia, but by calling her a 'stupid, stupid woman' you come across as unbelievably rude and patronising (and sexist? - echoes of David Cameron there...) - and also stupid, because you are yourself wrong. (Note: don't criticise others for their 'stupidity' unless you're extraordinarily sure you've checked your facts first.)
Eugenics is (dictionary definition) "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). "
You'll note that the definition goes well beyond the "death camps and forced sterilisation" that you suggest; you appear to be confusing eugenics with genocide, possibly? The actual definition is far, far wider, and thus includes, for example, everything from use of modern reproductive technologies eg producing babies free from various genetic disorders, to funding for families with children. Indeed, it seems absolutely clear that removing funding for the poor to have children would act as a serious 'discouragement' to them to do so.
Here's Wikipedia:
"Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. To population geneticists the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without necessarily altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent".[37] Much debate has taken place in the past, as it does today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.[38] Some types of eugenics deal only with perceived beneficial and/or detrimental genetic traits. ...
The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies influential during the early 20th century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities". It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. "
Which arguably is what is behind attempts to restrict numbers of children that the poor may have.
In short - you are perfectly entitled to state that the number of children the poor should have should be restricted (just as we are to judge you for those attitudes, by the way).
What you are NOT entitled to do is to rewrite the English language in your attempt to make this point and to humiliate and patronise a fellow poster. 