Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry for the sensational title, but I was limited on characters.

    The real question is: should individuals that have multiple children taken into care face compulsory sterilisation?

    Now, obviously, I’m not arguing that all those that have their children admitted into the care system should be sterilised. However, there are many individuals that continue to churn out babies which, time and time again, are taken away by social services. Some of these children get adopted and move onto better lives, but others spend years in the care system, moving from home to home, until they themselves become the bad parents of the future.

    Now, remember, we are not talking abortion, we are talking sterilisation. As such, no arguments about “robbing individuals of life before they are even born”. The only individual that will “suffer” would be the parent.

    I would seek to impose this “punishment” on both men and women, although there may be issues identifying fathers which could make such a system unworkable.

    Whilst I have used the term "punishment", I would prefer to see this as A) a way for the country to save money (billions spent every year on Looked After Children) and B) deter individuals from having babies if they are unable to look after them.



    Opinions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    troll?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/59...ant-again.html


    It is a touchy subject, we want to have the ability to try and prevent this from happening, having children be put in an environment which they suffer or whatever but it is a really breach of rights if people intervene in their choice of having kids... *sighs*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kate_187)
    troll?
    How is this trolling?

    It is a valid question. Is it so shocking to you that these individuals should be sterilised? The fact that they cost the country millions and destroy the lives of their children is okay?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kate_187)
    troll?
    Do you reckon they shouted troll at Hitler?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/59...ant-again.html


    It is a touchy subject, we want to have the ability to try and prevent this from happening, having children be put in an environment which they suffer or whatever but it is a really breach of rights if people intervene in their choice of having kids... *sighs*
    Yeah I saw that story. I don't know, whether she's changed or not, but 13 kids is a LOT to just have them taken away constantly...but you just can't force someone to be sterilised. Otherwise what else could we sterilise people for?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/59...ant-again.html


    It is a touchy subject, we want to have the ability to try and prevent this from happening, having children be put in an environment which they suffer or whatever but it is a really breach of rights if people intervene in their choice of having kids... *sighs*
    Oh dear, the "human rights" issue comes up again. What about "human responsibility"?

    I would argue that, in this case, the "human rights" of the unborn children far outweigh the "human rights" of the mother. The problem is, i assume, that you cannot legally give rights to potential children.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MewMachine)
    Yeah I saw that story. I don't know, whether she's changed or not, but 13 kids is a LOT to just have them taken away constantly...but you just can't force someone to be sterilised. Otherwise what else could we sterilise people for?
    Ummm, nothing?

    This wouldn't be the start of some slippery slope. We're not going to start sterilising people willy nilly (no pun intended) , it is a measure imposed in order to tackle a specific social problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Such a system can never really be put in place. Maybe a bad parents register like the sex offenders register but that's just a random idea.
    Read the story and that woman should be sterilised. Maybe for extreme cases?

    Side note: It shouldn't take you 13 kids to realise you're a bad mother. She's a twisted ******
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Oh dear, the "human rights" issue comes up again. What about "human responsibility"?

    I would argue that, in this case, the "human rights" of the unborn children far outweigh the "human rights" of the mother. The problem is, i assume, that you cannot legally give rights to potential children.
    You can never know if the parents are going to be good ones until the child is born... Therefore sterilisation is a bit over the top, because you never know, they may change...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Also in The Sun. .

    The current welfare state encourges them. They live rent free and get £1,100 a month for basically sitting on their asses. She imho should, as she is just using her children as basically blackmail. And the thing that really pissed me off was the fact that she would keep doing it until they allowed her to keep one child. I mean for christ's sake her sodding "plan" is costing the taxpayers money. Sodding millions.

    ...the story really annoyed me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Taken from the Telegraph story:

    Miss Winters, 36, has not been able to keep any of her offspring beyond the age of two, but insists she deserves a second chance at being a mother.

    She admits that social services had made the right decision in removing her first 13 children because she had neglected them, but claims to have "calmed down" now.

    Miss Winters, who was taken into care herself as a teenager, says social services should be helping her and the father of 11 of her children, Tony Housden, to achieve their "dream" of becoming a family.


    See the trend?

    And no, I don't see this as unworkable. In fact, it is as workable as imposing a prison sentance. In many ways, people like Ms Winters are doing just as much damage, if not more, than murderers - they are destroying lives!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    You can never know if the parents are going to be good ones until the child is born... Therefore sterilisation is a bit over the top, because you never know, they may change...
    Should the same rule be applied to rapists and murderers???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/59...ant-again.html


    It is a touchy subject, we want to have the ability to try and prevent this from happening, having children be put in an environment which they suffer or whatever but it is a really breach of rights if people intervene in their choice of having kids... *sighs*
    haha you really found the absolute worst example...god, that makes you fear for civilisation doesnt it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thin end of the wedge. Once you start to say some people shouldn't be allowed to have children you start the wheels in motion for society to say only certain people may reproduce.

    I prefer the situation as it is. At least if she keeps on churning out kids and the state continues to take them away as babies, then some happy person who would never be able to have their own child gets a brand new baby to bring up as their own.

    So in reality they are performing a public service!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    haha you really found the absolute worst example...god, that makes you fear for civilisation doesnt it?
    It is a bad example in the sense that Ms Winters is unsual to lose 13 kids to the care system, but believe me, she is one of many. Many people lose multiple children to the care system and, whilst not all should be sterilised, there are many "repeat offenders" that should.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Should the same rule be applied to rapists and murderers???
    It is a reason why it is difficult subject, I mean you never know if they are rapists or not until they do the deed, and you can never really know if they have changed..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    Thin end of the wedge. Once you start to say some people shouldn't be allowed to have children you start the wheels in motion for society to say only certain people may reproduce.

    I prefer the situation as it is. At least if she keeps on churning out kids and the state continues to take them away as babies, then some happy person who would never be able to have their own child gets a brand new baby to bring up as their own.

    So in reality they are performing a public service!
    Yes, that is a very nice picture of Social Services in the UK. The only problem is, it is nothing like that. To give some background, my family has been involved in fostering for the last 10 years and I am employed by a Local Authority and work closely with Social Services. In the whole 10 years my family have been fostering, I have only seen one child adopted. All the others moved around various foster homes until they reached 18, at which point they were spat out to fend for themselves. Also, some of these "mothers" put up such a struggle when their kid is taken into care, it becomes almost impossible to have the child adopted as the "mother" blocks the process, every step of the way.

    Also, whilst no one seems to think we should sterilise these people, no one seems to want to foster either. In fact, it is a constant struggle for social services to find good foster carers... which is funny given how high and mightly people are about "human rights".

    Human rights... grrr. makes me so angry. You should have to earn your rights....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XCRUSHESX)
    You can never know if the parents are going to be good ones until the child is born... Therefore sterilisation is a bit over the top, because you never know, they may change...
    Well you're right in most cases, but with regards to the story posted above, do you honestly think after 13 children this woman can change?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On the news today I heard one of the funniest/most pathetic things i've ever heard in my life:

    "Mother whose 13 kids were taken into care won’t stop till she can keep one"

    I honestly couldn't stop laughing for about 5 minutes. Obviously I feel sorry for the kids, but perhaps watching the Jeremy Kyle show so much in the past month has de-sensitised me to such crazy headlines

    As for your proposal - i'm not sure i'd personally agree with it, but stories like this certainly show me why someone might consider implementing such legislation
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.