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

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

No one is suggesting this. This is hyperbole. What is at stake is a real social issue - the fact that children are being born with preventable health conditions and who die or are harmed in other ways from abuse and neglect. How do we deal with this, given the realities that the care system is overburdened and inadequate and where the child is born with FAS or similar its life is already compromised in significant ways? This demands real debate and not emotive sophistry.

Better make sure we sterilise those children with FAS. And all the other children with neurodevelopmental disorders. They're all more likely to struggle to parent and have SS involved and possibly children harmed and or/removed.

Why wait till a baby is born and harmed if you can prevent it ever happening? So sterilise the mentally ill too. And the victims of domestic violence. All of those factors are usually involved when a child is seriously harmed.

Oh no...shit..it does like quite a lot like Nazi Germany.

Mnsplaining - some people are just "bad". Just because you find it difficult or awkward to comprehend - does not negate the fact some people behave in a manner most of us find disturbing, abhorrent or unbelievable.

Why would my acquaintance who adopted the 3 FAS children lie about it? My children were in nursery and school with those children affected by FAS. it's not fairytales.

Mnsplaining - some people are just "bad". Just because you find it difficult or awkward to comprehend - does not negate the fact some people behave in a manner most of us find disturbing, abhorrent or unbelievable ... and also that this harms others. I don't think Mnsplaining is really capable of rationally considering or debating this though.

" What is at stake is a real social issue - the fact that children are being born with preventable health conditions "

I appreciate what you are saying, but who would be the decision makers? who would moniter / check them?

Seas walls, antibiotics and contraception don’t infringe on anyone’s human rights (unless forced for the latter)

"What is at stake is a real social issue - the fact that children are being born with preventable health conditions "

What about people with known genetic diseases? They could pass them on to their children. What about sterilising then?

Come on, employ some critical thinking skills instead of swallowing nonsense.

Their children have FASD. So at least one parent has a serious mental illness. Do you think that might be a more plausible reason than having children to be removed and adopted 'for a laugh'.

As far as I am aware, there is no country in the world that sterilises alcoholic women or women who have had a previous FAS baby. Even China. You think the U.K. should be the first?

If people neglect and ill treat an animal, they can be banned from owning a pet for life. This safeguards future pets from their ill treatment.
If people do the same to a child, they are allowed to have as many future children as they want.
If we rule out sterilisation or long term contraceptive implants as eugenics, then at least all these future at risk children should be removed at birth and adopted - which is pretty much the system we have at present. Do you feel our current system isn’t working, OP?

I appreciate what you are saying, but who would be the decision makers? who would moniter / check them

There are medical ethics committees who already work with the courts. I think this should be part of the debate - how would we do this? Would it work? Would it be abused? Would this be a risk worth taking to prevent the suffering of children?

expects a whole heap of emotive answers that are not debate but emotional rhetoric

I don't believe there is a need for nastiness because someone's opinion differs from your own, if you think that someone is wrong in what they are saying then try and help them to change the way they think and give them all angles of the discussion

Well nasty doesn't begin to cover how disgusting it is that you chose to use the word 'breeding'. I think we could start with discussing why you chose that term to describe this couple? And then help change the way you think. FFS

Seas walls, antibiotics and contraception don’t infringe on anyone’s human rights (unless forced for the latter

What about children's rights to be both healthy?

Nobody should ever be forcibly sterilized, and certainly states which are often incompetent and occasionally malign should never have the power to do this.

We have processes for taking children who are at risk into care, that's a pretty weighty power in itself and the appropriate one to use.

What about people with known genetic diseases? They could pass them on to their children. What about sterilising then

No one is suggesting this. However, I do think that in some cases it should be the responsibility of parents not to reproduce. For example, I know someone with a disability that is passed from mother to daughter and each generation it seems to get worse. This person spends 75% of their time in extreme pain. In her shoes, I'd be seriously wondering about the ethics of bringing a girl-child into the world.

We have processes for taking children who are at risk into care, that's a pretty weighty power in itself and the appropriate one to use

An inadequate system that does not stop the horse from bolting - many children in care are born with life-limiting conditions or are so badly harmed that their lives will never be 'normal'. Why should we not consider preventing this?

My friends gran lives in a very rough estate.
There’s a woman there if they see appears to be pregnant they have to go and tell the community police officers.
She thinks if she hides it then she ‘can keep this one’. Probably is she is a heroin/methadone addict. Means she misses a lot of prenatal care as well.
Last time she was ‘told on’ she told friends gran it was fine now as they couldn’t evict her now so she would just stop paying rent. Baby was removed at birth, this was the third one.

Why should we not consider preventing this?

Because as a society there are lives that should not be crossed on ethical grounds. Inflicting surgery on someone to render them unable to have children is one of those lives.

An inadequate system that does not stop the horse from bolting - many children in care are born with life-limiting conditions or are so badly harmed that their lives will never be 'normal'.

Genetic diseases could come under this description. Want to sterilise someone who carries a dodgy gene in case they have a child?

Genetic diseases could come under this description. Want to sterilise someone who carries a dodgy gene in case they have a child

It's pretty clear from the above that no one is suggesting this. However, instead of addressing the issues and topic at hand posters continually raise this.

Because as a society there are lives that should not be crossed on ethical grounds. Inflicting surgery on someone to render them unable to have children is one of those lives

What about the babies' lives? Those with severe FASD?

*However, instead of addressing the issues and topic at hand posters continually raise this.
Because if you deem it acceptable to sterilise people on the grounds that their children will suffer if they’re born, the logical result of that is looking at equivalent situations. Some children with genetic diseases suffer worse than those with FASD.

What about the babies' lives? Those with severe FASD?

It’s really sad that children suffer. I still don’t think that justifies taking away a person’s right to consent to life changing surgery.

I think far more should be done to support women to make better choices in pregnancy and deal with the social issues that lead to situations like this.

Because if you deem it acceptable to sterilise people on the grounds that their children will suffer if they’re born, the logical result of that is looking at equivalent situations. Some children with genetic diseases suffer worse than those with FASD

Not logical at all. Having said this, I do think that it may potentially be a good thing to prevent children born into suffering. I certainly think that it is selfish to bring a child into the world knowing it will suffer.

I think far more should be done to support women to make better choices in pregnancy and deal with the social issues that lead to situations like this

Well of course. This is not either/or. Of course women should be supported and men too re making responsible decisions re parenthood and during pregnancy. But I also think that there is room for debate, working perhaps on the established principle of 'the best interests of the child' re the potential for sterilising some individuals (men and women) where these individuals have caused children real damage or harm.

What about the case of men who have repeatedly abused their own children? Raped babies? Such men exist.