Aibu to expect people to help themselves in their own lives?

[Lazymazy1]

Have wanted to be a social worker for many years, have a degree and was looking to do a MSc.
However, doing voluntary work with a family who are in a very chaotic position, who won't help themselves, ie getting pregnant again whilst effectively homeless. Not taking control of things which will make a big difference in their current situation.

It isn't a case of can't, but won't help themselves, perhaps ingrained.

Am I being unreasonable ? Or are there good reasons why people just won't help themselves?

Ever noticed how the poor "breed"? Like animals. FFS.

Would you talk about your ever-so-nice MC friend using that word?

Parsley, there is a massive difference between the decision being made that a child should be removed at birth (which there must sometimes be cause for) and saying that someone should not 'breed' - that they should be prevented from being pregnant.

That latter is eugenics.

Almond I don't have the answers atall and re breeding it is breeding isn't it ? Keeping having children without thought or ability to care for them even with the best will and help in the world.

We don't normally refer to humans having children as breeding. It is considered very negative language.

I would expect the overwhelming majority of people to understand that eugenics is very much wrong.

Breeding rightyo parsley

parsley

There is an org that works with women who have had children removed from their care I cannot remember it's name of the top of my head.

It does intense work with the mothers surounding controlling their own bodies and understanding why it happened and part of its approach is discouraging repeat births via education it is my understanding that they had a incredibly high sucess rate spread over a decent amount of time.
Damn shame it's recently had it's funding fucked over

We are told eugenics is wrong because of history of course . But, when someone is incapable of looking after children then goes on to have more, ( so the child suffers incredibly ) . Is it still wrong?

I mean is it wrong to stop the parent having further children, contraception etc

Do parents seemingly have greater rights than the child, those that have no choice, have no say? I feel passionately about this

needs absolute scandal that the education was stopped , if had such high success rate 😠

If the parent is so incompetent that the child is removed at birth, how is the child suffering incredibly?

There is a difference between education and offering contraception and stopping someone getting pregnant.

Eugenics is wrong under international law.

I don't think its eugenics I think it is looking at the facts and saying without a great deal of time proper therapy support all costing a lot of money that it is folly to let a woman have baby after baby with the same outcome i.e. Poor and surely the unborn child should have a fighting chance. I would agree with Mary who has the final say ?

No parents do not have greater rights than the child. The rights of the child outrank other rights. That is a very basic principle that anyone who volunteers with the public should have covered in basic training.

You cant stop women having babies sadly of course the children come first always thd childrens welfare comes first but you cant force women to stop having babies.

Preventing someone from getting pregnant because you consider their behaviour morally undesirable is eugenics!

You thinking eugenics is morally justifiable doesn't change the meaning of the word.

The problem is that you're looking at the what and not the why.

*Almondpudding' I am not sure anyone is advocating actually stopping people getting pregnant but it would certainly be nice if they stopped themselves

Merrygoround, that's why I've asked Parsley to clarify exactly what it is she is advocating.

As I've said, there is a very great difference between

a. Removing children at birth if there is a great risk.
b. Offering contraceptive advice.
c. Stopping someone from getting pregnant.

The latter is the issue.

I'm not sure if technically it's eugenics; eugenics proper focuses on hereditary characteristics and would argue that the hypothetical woman we are talking about has some kind of genetic flaw that leads to fecklessness and degeneracy. Saying that this woman ought not to have babies is some kind of horrible, but IMO not eugenics.

But if we argue that this woman's babies are not somehow genetically flawed, then the argument saying she should not be allowed to have them at all falls down, because if she's that bad her child could be removed at birth and adopted by one of the many families desperate to adopt a baby (I know the system shoes not work like this, but while we're talking hypotheticals…). This doesn't help much in the case of, e.g., FASD, but while forcing people not to "breed" is repugnant, I'm not sure it's technically eugenics.

I wish I could find the info I'm talking about (at the moment I'm at the hospital with one of mine so a bit distracted)

The basic jist of it was a small amount of women are responsible for a great many of the children permanently removed in the area that the service covered.

In my head I'm picturing the people diagram they used on their literature. By the end of the intervention with the women who agreed to work with the service not one of them had had another birth and almost all of them were discharged from the service with implants or coils and all felt positive about having them and wished to delay any further attempts to conceive until they had made sure that they had compleated any behaviour modifications and learning in order to keep a child.
All participants understood very clearly that they had no chance of keeping a baby untill they had made changes and demonstrated sucess all understood that should a pregnancy occur prior to those changes that a baby would be removed at birth.

It was impressive stuff or at least appeared to be.

I'm quite happy not to use the word eugenics if it is a matter of debate.

Maybe it would be more accurate to state! as a starting point, that forced sterilisation is a crime against humanity under international law, and ask posters to clarify what they mean exactly when they say women should be stopped from getting pregnant.

If a women is considered to be breeding then surely that seen as a flaw in her character and she should stop breeding then that is eugenics

I think any state intervention to stop women having children is utterly horrific.
However it is not unreasonable to expect someone to make an informed decision regarding having more children.

And despite the fact that it is unpalatable benefits come into it - more children, more benefits.

I remember after the baby p case, there was a threads on here discussing the future of his mother. Most posters supported her right to have more children, even if they would be removed at birth!

Personally, I think she should be kept in jail until she reaches menopause.

Lazymazy, if you want a moving argument for why Eugenics is mad, bad and dangerous read the last part of P D James' Children of Men and see how the human race was redeemed.