To think they should never have been allowed more children ?

[JellieEllie]

This couple have lost 3 children to death in a period of 16 months.
The father has now separated from the children's mother and has gone on to have a further child with his new partner.

Why oh why are these types of irresponsible parents allowed to keep on breeding?
Should laws be put in place where parents who are the direct cause of a child's death be forcibly sterilised to prevent further incidents in the future ?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-whose-baby-died-boozed-13209349

Who would choose who is forcibly sterilised?
What would be the cut-off for sterilisation?
What if a hitleresque government came into power who exploited the legislation to sterilise disabled people?
Who would force those selected for sterilisation into a vehicle to take them to hospital?
Who would hold a screaming woman down while someone else forces an anaesthetic mask over her face?

If you’re in favour of forced sterilisation, this is what you have to consider.

Ah - MNSplaining has made all my points for me!

A woman I know has adopted 3 of her brother's FAS children. I haven't spoken to her now for 3 years (both moved away). There were at least 6 she knew of. I asked why the girlfriend kept having these children she knew would be taken at birth - I think most of us can only try to imagine the emotional anguish should it happen to us. Apparently she got her kicks from it - fucking over social services - she wanted them to have to deal with repeated big problems and found it funny.

My acquaintance wanted them both sterilised.

The only saving grace is that the girlfriend must now be at least mid-30s so hopefully mother nature will step in.

Of course. It's well known women have repeated pregnancies, chug alcohol throughout and endure the trauma of birth, then removal and adoption of that child to wind up social services because it's funny.

Or..maybe there were other reasons. Considering you never even met this woman, that is far more likely than the ridiculous gossip you listened to.

If the government stopped subsidising parenthood through child benefit, state schools, NHS births etc. these kinds of people wouldnt be able to have children in the first place and those who managed to save enough money to have them would value them more.

Haven't RTWT, sorry, & this might have been said already but..

The flaw in your argument, I think JellieEllie is this:

Anyone who physically harms, neglects or kills their children should not be given a right to have further children. They really shouldn't.

The people you are referring to are not given the right are they?

Assuming that there are no fertitlity issues, this is just something that happens naturally, unless steps are taken to prevent it from happening.

You are looking at it from the wrong angle, I think....If the couple in question, were given unlimited NHS funding for fertility treatment, you could argue that they were in theory being given the right to have more children (even though it might not even work).

This is not what is happening. The right if you want to call it that, is already theirs.

So really, maybe you should be honest, because your argument is factually incorrect and void, as I see it.

If you want to ask "Should these people be forcibly prevented from having more children?" then be honest and throw that one out there!

For the record, IMHO, no, people should not be forcibly prevented from having more children.

I used to foster

Thatsajokeright

I used to work in the social care sector. I spoke with a social worker once about women who repeatedly had babies taken from them at birth.

He was told by a service user: "I'm just going to keep having them until you let me keep one". sad I think she'd just had baby number 7 removed.
this

I don't think we should be forcing sterilisation on people. But reading that story and seeing theat little girl does beak my heat. I know that they are probably devasted but it does feel like a high number of babies dying in a short period of time.

As pps have said you're nor supposed to leave them in the car seats for long and I'm pretty fucking sure you're not supposed to leave your baby alone in a hotel room without a baby monitor while you get pissed. I really can't see how her death is not partly their fault.

In these circumstances I do think the really difficult decision should be made to remove babies at birth. I also think the parents need support to stop this cycle of having kids they can't look after. Which is way easier said than done.

Wow Racecardriver that's some theory you've got there!

If the government stopped subsidising parenthood through child benefit, state schools, NHS births etc. these kinds of people wouldnt be able to have children in the first place and those who managed to save enough money to have them would value them more.

I think this must be tongue in cheek, but in case it isn't..

Have you considered running for the post of Conservative Leader? People would still have unprotected sex and have children, even the unsavoury drug addicts and alcholics (and that was tongue in cheek .)

What about paying people not to have children? It would save lots of heartache and money in the longterm. For example the government could offer all females from 15 upwards £100 a week to not have a baby. When you do have a baby, that payment stops.

I’m assuming the kind of people who would prioritise drinking and drugging all day would be very careful with birth control/morning after pill/early abortion to keep that payment coming. The money would then stop at 45 or something.

It sounds like a lot of money but when you consider the cost of social services and other services to deal with neglectful parents, it’s not that much. It’s also a choice unlike forced sterilisation.

Barnaby why is option 3 the least barbaric

Removing a new-born from their mother is extra-ordinarily traumatic for the mother. The brain-damaged baby wasn’t for dramatic effect. Unfortunately many children born into these circumstances do have major disabilities that ensure tragically they are not readily adopted - I have seen this first hand. Sterilisation could be the least worst option in the circumstances.

And the comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

If I said I thought a murderer should be deprived of their liberty (a basic human right) for a very extended period, would people respond with:
a) who are you to decide what people should be imprisoned for!
b) the Nazis imprisoned! If we imprison people we’re as bad as them!
c) We shouldn’t imprison murderers, as who knows where it will stop! Murderers today, those who overstay their parking by 5 mins tomorrow!

Having children should be looked at as a freedom, not a right. The right, under human rights law, is not to have a child, but rather to not have that freedom to have a child interfered with by the state i.e by enforced sterilisation.

What about paying people not to have children? It would save lots of heartache and money in the longterm. For example the government could offer all females from 15 upwards £100 a week to not have a baby. When you do have a baby, that payment stops.

Just playing devil's advocate here..so what would the criteria be? Literally any female who reaches the age of 15years? I'm interested in this, but can't see it being finacially viable. It raises some questions:

Might it increase the number of abortions?
Would we see an increase in abandoned babies?
Would it be sexist?
What about becoming pregnant through rape?

I think you might be onto something, though, & should start another thread!

I don't think you have a right to stop anyone reproducing.

However, I do think those babies should be removed before leaving hospital if the risk of them being harmed is high. Preferably by a family member but if not, into care.

Because then the babies right trumps the parents.

All those referring to the horrors of sterilisation - how do you justify the bringing into the world of babies with FAS or worse, or babies who are perfectly healthy and who are killed or die from neglect or end up with major physical or mental health issues because of abuse or neglect? On one side of the scales we have individuals who are being 'forcibly sterilised' (in our hypothetical example), but on the other we have the reality of babies and children whose lives are shortened, ended or made miserable. There is an implied right to reproduce - but what about the rights of children?

I do understand though op.

DHs relative has had both her children removed. One went to another family member and another went into care. She was surrounded by drugs and did just leave her kids with anyone.

Barnaby these are women who presumably don’t want to be sterilised though, so as traumatic as removing their baby at birth is that is at least what they’ve chosen/ risked rather than sterilisation

YetAnotherSpartacus - there is no justification of those things, but they are at least nature. They are the norm. Stopping them is stopping nature

Hi OP question for you? Should we apply to every birth parent who has lost a child to the adoption system? Should they immediately be sterilised?

Are we not going to give parents a chance to change things around? You know work on their issues, attend therapy and stop the behaviours that led to losing there children?

I only ask as I was that parent.

However, I do think those babies should be removed before leaving hospital if the risk of them being harmed is high. Preferably by a family member but if not, into care

Yes - but FAS babies are usually not adopted, often next of kin care arrangements are toxic and inadequate but are popular because they are cheap for the state and the care system for babies and children with complex needs (FAS and otherwise) is hopelessly overburdened and often these children are already so badly harmed that their lives are already compromised.?

YetAnotherSpartacus - there is no justification of those things, but they are at least nature. They are the norm. Stopping them is stopping nature

So let's not build sea walls and let's dispense with antibiotics and contraception because all these things are 'interfering with nature'.

" Should laws be put in place where parents who are the direct cause of a child's death be forcibly sterilised to prevent further incidents in the future ? "

yes good idea and at the same time we could round up anyone with mental health problems or learning difficulties , and kill them. then I think anyone who is disfigured should be next and then gays...

it will be wonderful.

oh wait..