Mandatory sterilisation

[TigerTedd]

Help me out here, someone give me a good reason why this isn't allowed.

An example: a friend of mine adopted a child, it had already been decided the parents would have to give up the child for adoption, they are unfit parents. A year later, the couple are pregnant again. It's already decided they are still unfit parents, so my friend has first refusal on adopting the child, keep the set together, so to speak. Now bear in mind that my friend only really signed up for 1 child, but now feels obliged to keep the siblings together, and is happy to do so. But now this couple are on there 4th child in about 6 years. Surely if it has been predetermined that they wil not be allowed to keep any of their children, and they seem to be reasonably happy with that idea, then why not go for mandatory sterilisation. Or at the very least, an implant that can be removed when it's decided they are ready to look after their own kids. 

I've now heard of three separate instances of these (I don't work in adoption services or anything, these are friends or friends of friends). The last of which has ended quite tragically, but I'll not go into detail in case they don't want it publicised to the net.

But seriously, how is this not already a law? What possible argument could there be against it? Anyone else got similar examples?

[davenportram]

44 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Help me out here, someone give me a good reason why this isn't allowed.

An example: a friend of mine adopted a child, it had already been decided the parents would have to give up the child for adoption, they are unfit parents. A year later, the couple are pregnant again. It's already decided they are still unfit parents, so my friend has first refusal on adopting the child, keep the set together, so to speak. Now bear in mind that my friend only really signed up for 1 child, but now feels obliged to keep the siblings together, and is happy to do so. But now this couple are on there 4th child in about 6 years. Surely if it has been predetermined that they wil not be allowed to keep any of their children, and they seem to be reasonably happy with that idea, then why not go for mandatory sterilisation. Or at the very least, an implant that can be removed when it's decided they are ready to look after their own kids. 

I've now heard of three separate instances of these (I don't work in adoption services or anything, these are friends or friends of friends). The last of which has ended quite tragically, but I'll not go into detail in case they don't want it publicised to the net.

But seriously, how is this not already a law? What possible argument could there be against it? Anyone else got similar examples?

human rights.

[TigerTedd]

26 minutes ago, davenportram said:

human rights.

Don't buy it. If there was no one willing to adopt those babies, what sort of life would they have. Surely there's got to be some sort of human right infringement there. 

[uttoxram75]

There's no reasonable answer to this TT.

The scum deserve to be sterilised but what kind of controlled, fascist/communist world would we have to live in if that was allowed to happen.

If we want to be a democratic, civilised society then i'm afraid we'll have to put up with scumbags like this.

Mind you, it might help if Jeremy Kyle didn't encourage and glamourise these type of scumbuckets.

[froggg]

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Help me out here, someone give me a good reason why this isn't allowed.

An example: a friend of mine adopted a child, it had already been decided the parents would have to give up the child for adoption, they are unfit parents. A year later, the couple are pregnant again. It's already decided they are still unfit parents, so my friend has first refusal on adopting the child, keep the set together, so to speak. Now bear in mind that my friend only really signed up for 1 child, but now feels obliged to keep the siblings together, and is happy to do so. But now this couple are on there 4th child in about 6 years. Surely if it has been predetermined that they wil not be allowed to keep any of their children, and they seem to be reasonably happy with that idea, then why not go for mandatory sterilisation. Or at the very least, an implant that can be removed when it's decided they are ready to look after their own kids. 

I've now heard of three separate instances of these (I don't work in adoption services or anything, these are friends or friends of friends). The last of which has ended quite tragically, but I'll not go into detail in case they don't want it publicised to the net.

But seriously, how is this not already a law? What possible argument could there be against it? Anyone else got similar examples?

Come on mate the natzi's tried all this shizz, we've moved on a bit since then?

[TigerTedd]

43 minutes ago, froggg said:

Come on mate the natzi's tried all this shizz, we've moved on a bit since then?

Okay, maybe not mandatory sterilisation. But an implant is a temporary solution. I imagine (I don't know) they've been given a **** ton of condoms, and as many contraceptive pills as they can get their hands on, but can't be stars to use them. I can't understand why they wouldn't want a contraceptive implant, if it was offered. Why would you want to get pregnant if you know it's going to be taken away? You don't even get the benefit of added benefits. Couldn't the fact that 'civilised' individuals are making the decision to take the baby away, also be seen as a draconian measure? 

My third is on the way, due in a month, and I'm for the chop as soon as she's born. I don't understand why someone who isn't fit to be a parent wouldn't make that same decision, or accept the decision if it was made for them. 

[StringerBell]

3 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Help me out here, someone give me a good reason why this isn't allowed.

An example: a friend of mine adopted a child, it had already been decided the parents would have to give up the child for adoption, they are unfit parents. A year later, the couple are pregnant again. It's already decided they are still unfit parents, so my friend has first refusal on adopting the child, keep the set together, so to speak. Now bear in mind that my friend only really signed up for 1 child, but now feels obliged to keep the siblings together, and is happy to do so. But now this couple are on there 4th child in about 6 years. Surely if it has been predetermined that they wil not be allowed to keep any of their children, and they seem to be reasonably happy with that idea, then why not go for mandatory sterilisation. Or at the very least, an implant that can be removed when it's decided they are ready to look after their own kids. 

I've now heard of three separate instances of these (I don't work in adoption services or anything, these are friends or friends of friends). The last of which has ended quite tragically, but I'll not go into detail in case they don't want it publicised to the net.

But seriously, how is this not already a law? What possible argument could there be against it? Anyone else got similar examples?

Yes I've worked in social services. Happens all the time. And I completely agree with this. Sod human rights. We put people in prison and literally deprive them of their freedom if they do wrong but preventing people who the state has determined can't have kids from continually popping out kids is crossing the line somehow? Makes no sense to me.

And I don't know why they do it but some twisted enjoyment of the whole process of having the social come round every week is something I've heard said.

[EssendonRam]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

There's no reasonable answer to this TT.

The scum deserve to be sterilised but what kind of controlled, fascist/communist world would we have to live in if that was allowed to happen.

If we want to be a democratic, civilised society then i'm afraid we'll have to put up with scumbags like this.

Mind you, it might help if Jeremy Kyle didn't encourage and glamourise these type of scumbuckets.

That, sadly, is as close to a word perfect answer as I suspect anyone is ever going to achieve.

37 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Yes I've worked in social services. Happens all the time. And I completely agree with this. Sod human rights. We put people in prison and literally deprive them of their freedom if they do wrong but preventing people who the state has determined can't have kids from continually popping out kids is crossing the line somehow? Makes no sense to me.

And I don't know why they do it but some twisted enjoyment of the whole process of having the social come round every week is something I've heard said.

I saw your response, Stringer, and wonder if you might clarify something for me?

Are Social Services (or whatever they're called in Britain) relying upon some sort of umbrella order so they can remove a child as soon as the muvver makes the "popping" sound? Or would, as I would assume based on the way it works in Australia, Social Services have to continue to make inspections as a pregnancy nears term and after the birth, looking for a specific justification for the removal of each child?

If it is the former, you would think an order to have the muvver implanted with one of those subcutaneous contraceptives which last twelve months would be quite feasible.

And, yes, I too find myself wondering what is wrong with such people? How could you see having yet another underprivileged child (and based solely on presumptions from the description not used by TT) and high risk child borne only to be removed? You would think that having your children removed from you, one after another, would be upsetting???

[PrivateDerby]

I've got a family member that fosters they've been asked to take unborn siblings a few times, care orders are in place pre birth. 

They even offer them parenting classes with assessments to see if they could actually care for their own children but they still fail.

Why they do it to themselves is beyond me, oh and the amount of babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and drug withdrawal is unbelievable.

The whole country is on its knees and it's never gonna get up. Sad really, its the reason I've not got children of my own, would feel too guilty bringing them into this *****, will probably end up fostering or adopting eventually. 

[TigerTedd]

It's easy to say 'human rights' until you've seen the after effects. If the decision has been made, it's been made. Either take that to its logical conclusion, or don't bother doing anything at all. Simply letting them have the kids and instantly trying to regime them isn't really achieving anything. 

[bcnram]

3 hours ago, PrivateDerby said:

I've got a family member that fosters they've been asked to take unborn siblings a few times, care orders are in place pre birth. 

They even offer them parenting classes with assessments to see if they could actually care for their own children but they still fail.

Why they do it to themselves is beyond me, oh and the amount of babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and drug withdrawal is unbelievable.

The whole country is on its knees and it's never gonna get up. Sad really, its the reason I've not got children of my own, would feel too guilty bringing them into this *****, will probably end up fostering or adopting eventually. 

Crikey!! What sort of World do you live in? To have and bring up children is the most joyous thing a person can do. I do admire people who foster kids.

[bcnram]

I know we should all be behind human rights for these misfits, but I think that 'human rights' have to be earned, if you are a blight on society then you have not earned that right. In extreme cases I would not be against forced sterilisation.

[CornwallRam]

There are two problems with forced sterilisation - 

1, Many 17 year olds would and do make terrible parents. Many are just too immature at that age. People often react to past abuses by becoming abusers themselves and drugs cause an enormous amount of problems. Yet, a good number of such people mature into decent people. If someone has worked really hard to turn around their lives and reaches a point where they would make good parents, it would seem a punishment too far, and indeed a disincentive for them to actually make progress, if they had been sterilised at 17.

2, It's never a good idea to allow the state to have too much power over the bodies of individuals. In this country people have been executed for being Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, not being Catholic, learning medicine, experimenting with electricity, criticising the monarch, asking for fairer voting systems, demanding votes for women, being homosexual, being poor etc. In retrospect, thinks like this seem barbaric and insane, yet at the time, those in authority believe that they acted in the best interests of the state. Things move on, but that doesn't mean that in a hundred year's time we won't look back on bad parents and the way they were dealt with with incredulity. Maybe there'll discover that is was caused by an environmental factor, eg, mobile phone signals trigger such behaior in those with a G2 gene (fictitious example btw), so their behavior wasn't actually their fault. Because of that, the state should not be allowed to do anything which is not reversible.

As a society we should do all we can to protect the children, and taking them into care with a view to future adoption seems about the best solution, but we should also bear in mind that public opinion and current societal norms could be wrong, so physically damaging other human beings should be avoided wherever possible.

[TigerTedd]

6 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

There are two problems with forced sterilisation - 

1, Many 17 year olds would and do make terrible parents. Many are just too immature at that age. People often react to past abuses by becoming abusers themselves and drugs cause an enormous amount of problems. Yet, a good number of such people mature into decent people. If someone has worked really hard to turn around their lives and reaches a point where they would make good parents, it would seem a punishment too far, and indeed a disincentive for them to actually make progress, if they had been sterilised at 17.

2, It's never a good idea to allow the state to have too much power over the bodies of individuals. In this country people have been executed for being Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, not being Catholic, learning medicine, experimenting with electricity, criticising the monarch, asking for fairer voting systems, demanding votes for women, being homosexual, being poor etc. In retrospect, thinks like this seem barbaric and insane, yet at the time, those in authority believe that they acted in the best interests of the state. Things move on, but that doesn't mean that in a hundred year's time we won't look back on bad parents and the way they were dealt with with incredulity. Maybe there'll discover that is was caused by an environmental factor, eg, mobile phone signals trigger such behaior in those with a G2 gene (fictitious example btw), so their behavior wasn't actually their fault. Because of that, the state should not be allowed to do anything which is not reversible.

As a society we should do all we can to protect the children, and taking them into care with a view to future adoption seems about the best solution, but we should also bear in mind that public opinion and current societal norms could be wrong, so physically damaging other human beings should be avoided wherever possible.

So what if it was reversible. There are reversible options. 

Mans in my real world examples, we're not talking about 27 year olds. These are older people in long term relationships (long enough term to have had 5 kids). Might have started when they were 17, but after child 3 or 4, there should be some alarm bells ringing, and measures that could be taken. 

While temporary solutions exist (and I'm the result of a reversed vasectomy, so even permanent solutions aren't necessarily permanent), enforcing a permanent solution would probably be barbaric for reasons you suggest, there's no need, but temporary solutions surely must be considered.

it could be environmental factors, and they could turn their life around, but in the meantime, they need as much help as they can get, not simply being allowed to damage themselves more and more. How much damage does 5 pregnancies do, without even having the joy of the baby at the end of it. At a certain points it's just self harm, physical and emotional.

People mental ill health are prescribed medications, and if they don't take them, they're institutionalised and looked after, they're considered unable to look after themselves. Is that barbaric, or is it part of a duty of care?

[King Kevin]

My wife and I used to foster with one exception all were girls, mum and dad spilt up boyfriend or family member sexually abuses the girl mum sticks up for boyfriend child goes into care.

We had one child come to us pregnant aged 12 ,my wife who bless her is able to do things beyond my scope sorted her out .Mum and new boyfriend were not supposed to know her whereabouts but I get a call one night from said boyfriend threatening me and asking for my address.

Don't bother with mine tell me yours and I will be round in 5 minutes I would love to meet the man who abused the child in my care .Needless to say the phone went down pretty quick ,he had already assaulted a social worker on the way to court.

When we went to "night school" to become foster parents they asked me what I would do if introduced to someone who had abused the child in care my reply was just don't do it and it will be fine,sadly that answer now would probably prevent us from fostering. 

[Sith Happens]

A really emotive subject.

On one hand we can argue about human rights and everyone should be allowed to do what they want, the other hand we have the rights of the children.

No doubt all of this process costs money when social workers are involved and then a process to have the children put into care, maybe the people involved should be required to pay these costs, that might make them think twice before they decide to do it again.

There does seem to be a culture where people dont think they need to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Stive Pesley]

5 hours ago, PrivateDerby said:

The whole country is on its knees and it's never gonna get up.

Come on now - it's hardly the "whole country" - it's sad and horrible but it's still just a very small minority of people in this state. Perspective please.

 

[StringerBell]

9 hours ago, RamDon said:

That, sadly, is as close to a word perfect answer as I suspect anyone is ever going to achieve.

I saw your response, Stringer, and wonder if you might clarify something for me?

Are Social Services (or whatever they're called in Britain) relying upon some sort of umbrella order so they can remove a child as soon as the muvver makes the "popping" sound? Or would, as I would assume based on the way it works in Australia, Social Services have to continue to make inspections as a pregnancy nears term and after the birth, looking for a specific justification for the removal of each child?

If it is the former, you would think an order to have the muvver implanted with one of those subcutaneous contraceptives which last twelve months would be quite feasible.

And, yes, I too find myself wondering what is wrong with such people? How could you see having yet another underprivileged child (and based solely on presumptions from the description not used by TT) and high risk child borne only to be removed? You would think that having your children removed from you, one after another, would be upsetting???

They do a pre-birth assessment for each child, but this is nothing more than a box ticking exercise in most cases in my experience. People can change obviously, but when someone has been negligent to a child in the past to the point that the child needed to be removed from their care for their own safety then I can't imagine you'd find too many social workers who would be willing to stick their neck out and suggest leaving any future child in their care, no matter how many parenting courses or counselling sessions they complete. Social workers are actually more than likely to be looking to trip the parent up somehow to prove they haven't changed. They won't state it in such ways of course as it sounds draconian, but that is largely what they are there for. They have a duty to the child.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but they really would be exceptions. I wouldn't like to be in court explaining why I felt a parent who had four children removed at birth was trustworthy enough to keep the fifth child, even though the child subsequently ended up dying in their care. Rightly or wrongly, in today's climate that's what any professional dealing with the case will be thinking.

When a parent neglects a child to this degree theyve really burned their bridges. 

All parties must be well aware that there is no chance they'll be keeping the kid when they've already had several kids removed from their care at birth. Yet many parents still get outraged at this when it happens. It's bizarre really, a strange mindset indeed.

[King Kevin]

2 hours ago, StivePesley said:

Come on now - it's hardly the "whole country" - it's sad and horrible but it's still just a very small minority of people in this state. Perspective please.

 

Still far to many of them and multiplying fast.

[Sith Happens]

I always had the idea that you should have to apply for a licence to have a child, to be able to prove that you can:

A) Afford to bring the child into the world and look after it. There should be no benefits at all for having children, if you choose to have one you pay.

B) Be fit and proper to look after that child too.

I know its not practical but it would be a nice start..prove you are capable then have have the child.

If you are on benefits and not working and have no savings to pay for the child, im sorry, you might make a good parent but in my opinion until you can demonstrate you can pay for clothes, food, an adequate roof over the childs head then dont have one.