Mandatory sterilisation

[Wolfie]

42 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

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.

.....because of course we all know that the key to being a good parent is being rich.

[Sith Happens]

1 hour ago, MB (Wolfie) said:

.....because of course we all know that the key to being a good parent is being rich.

Where do i say rich? I say able to afford to bring the child into the world and support it.

 

[Wolfie]

4 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Where do i say rich? I say able to afford to bring the child into the world and support it.

 

You said no benefits, so that's no child benefit, maternity pay, tax credits, childcare vouchers - no government support at all really.

Looks like you've got to be fairly well off to me unless rents or house prices are going to fall 50% so we can all go back to being single-earner households.

[TigerTedd]

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

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.

This is essentially what happens with adoption. 

Pissed me off when another friend of mine applied for adoption, but got refused because her husband was a bit overweight. He had to loose some weight before they accepted them as fit and proper parents. 

We're not talking morbidly obese here, just a bit roly poly. But their justification are that his odds of dying early are higher, therefore leaving the kids fatherless! Wtf!! He could loose the weight, adopt the kids, and get ran over by a bus the next day. 

He lost the weight, and they got 3 beautiful kids in a package deal. 

But you don't see natural parents being out through a test of whether or not their too fat to have a baby. There'd be a lot less kids in the world if they were. 

[Mafiabob]

3 hours ago, Paul71 said:

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.

Ridiculous last paragraph. Absolutely absurd.

Dont think I can add to more to what mb wolfie says.

 

 

 

[Wolfie]

20 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

This is essentially what happens with adoption. 

Pissed me off when another friend of mine applied for adoption, but got refused because her husband was a bit overweight. He had to loose some weight before they accepted them as fit and proper parents. 

We're not talking morbidly obese here, just a bit roly poly. But their justification are that his odds of dying early are higher, therefore leaving the kids fatherless! Wtf!! He could loose the weight, adopt the kids, and get ran over by a bus the next day. 

He lost the weight, and they got 3 beautiful kids in a package deal. 

But you don't see natural parents being out through a test of whether or not their too fat to have a baby. There'd be a lot less kids in the world if they were. 

But why wouldn't you try to place a child (who has probably already gone through hell once) with people who have a low a risk as possible of avoidable lifestyle related early death?. Of course you can't legislate for accidents & freak events.

Desperate for a child but don't like shifting a bit of weight to get one - even if it's only for long enough for the deal to go through?. They could always look at long term fostering or maybe re-assessing their priorities a bit.

[sage]

Working in education and fostering I have heard this argument many times and depending on what experiences I have had that day I have varying levels of sympathy with the 'solution' of the OP, but the Nazi analogy drags me back to the 21st century quickly enough.

However, there may be a third way between the two positions. Perhaps when an order is in place for unborn children to be put into care, the female should be given a 6 month contraceptive jab. Failure to comply would see a reduction in benefits.   

[needles]

The philosophy behind the current Yuman Rites laws is the rights of the individual.

The rights of society should trump the rights of the individual where that individual is a disproportionate burden on the rest of society.

Some people should be sterilised. Some paedo's and rapists should be castrated (chemically at least, a rusty knife would probably be unacceptable). Some criminals should be locked up without possibility of parole and some of the odious fuckpigs should be killed by the state to protect the rest of from their presence in society or the burden of paying to have them locked up. Brady and Hindley for instance. 

Most of this we don't have. It's a pity in my book.

[Sith Happens]

13 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Ridiculous last paragraph. Absolutely absurd.

Dont think I can add to more to what mb wolfie says.

 

 

 

So where does the money come from then?

 

[TigerTedd]

28 minutes ago, MB (Wolfie) said:

But why wouldn't you try to place a child (who has probably already gone through hell once) with people who have a low a risk as possible of avoidable lifestyle related early death?. Of course you can't legislate for accidents & freak events.

Desperate for a child but don't like shifting a bit of weight to get one - even if it's only for long enough for the deal to go through?. They could always look at long term fostering or maybe re-assessing their priorities a bit.

In this case they were desperate for the child, so he did shift the weight. My point is the disparity. If you're lucky enough to be able to conceive naturally, there are no rules governing whether or not you should be allowed to. If you're not lucky enough to conceive naturally, suddenly there's a million hoops to jump through. Not saying there should be no hoops for adoptive parents, I'm saying there should be more hoops for natural parents.

God knows my first and last came a bit to easy, I could've done with a few hoops to jump through and would've been thankful to the government that made me do so (love my kids to death, and wouldn't change it for the world, but I really should've put a bit more thought into it at the time). 

And it's not like adoptive parents are growing on trees. They can't really afford to be too fussy. If it's the choice of a slightly tubby dad, or a children's home, I think I'd take the tubby dad. 

[Mafiabob]

13 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

So where does the money come from then?

 

I like to think love for the child should be the priority bar none.

The ability to be a parent shouldn't be whether you can afford it. The generalisation in your statement that people on benefits and don't work should have to demonstrate they have to afford children really rankled me. Pompous really.

I lost a well paid job whilst being the father of three children. Reduced to minimum wage work whilst my wife at time was not working. Having to rely on benefits to make sure my children are fed and clothed and got a roof over their house. Having to pay certain bills late too..... So are you going to say I shouldn't be able to afford to have 3 children and take mine away because I struggled to pay bills.

I would rather live in a society where love is the be and end all..... Not pounds shilling and pence, if you think the other way than I would seem that rather shallow.

 

 

 

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

I like to think love for the child should be the priority bar none.

The ability to be a parent shouldn't be whether you can afford it. The generalisation in your statement that people on benefits and don't work should have to demonstrate they have to afford children really rankled me. Pompous really.

I lost a well paid job whilst being the father of three children. Reduced to minimum wage work whilst my wife at time was not working. Having to rely on benefits to make sure my children are fed and clothed and got a roof over their house. Having to pay certain bills late too..... So are you going to say I shouldn't be able to afford to have 3 children and take mine away because I struggled to pay bills.

I would rather live in a society where love is the be and end all..... Not pounds shilling and pence, if you think the other way than I would seem that rather shallow.

 

 

 

I havent even suggested children should be taken away from someone in a situation like yours, of course there are times through no fault of our own that we need help, dont have an issue with that.

I think you know my gripe is with people who knowingly bring children into the world expecting the state to support them and not being prepared to support themselves.

 

[Mafiabob]

2 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I havent even suggested children should be taken away from someone in a situation like yours, of course there are times through no fault of our own that we need help, dont have an issue with that.

I think you know my gripe is with people who knowingly bring children into the world expecting the state to support them and not being prepared to support themselves.

 

Maybe you should have worded the post better as it looks like you suggested people on benefits who don't work should demonstrate the ability to afford children. Lots of different benefits out there. Most of us are on some sort.

Understand your gripe totally, however I view people like this and who take money and no give the same as ones who avoid tax continuously..... The bottom and top 1% of this country are the ones who burden the other 98%, apologies to digress.

[Sith Happens]

12 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Maybe you should have worded the post better as it looks like you suggested people on benefits who don't work should demonstrate the ability to afford children. Lots of different benefits out there. Most of us are on some sort.

Understand your gripe totally, however I view people like this and who take money and no give the same as ones who avoid tax continuously..... The bottom and top 1% of this country are the ones who burden the other 98%, apologies to digress.

My view would still be, if you are capable of working but arent doing...then wait until you are, or do not need the state to support your child, before you choose to have children.

My views on the drain to the system as a result of actions taken by an individual who does not take responsibility may be a bit biased...i hate the fact that i have witnessed throughout my working life so called friends of mine, or friends of friends totally abusing the system, one person i knew actually put stones in his shoes once on a doctors appointment so he would get signed off again, never worked yet stil had kids...who is paying for them?

We see that the NHS spends £5billion a year on obesity related health problems, the east midlands ambulance service is currently replacing all of its 200+ fleet so it can carry people who weigh more than 50 stone...whos paying for this? And yes i know there are those that argue some obese people cant help it and i get that, but we also know a lot more can.

Yet people with cancer...i included...have to fight and struggle to get drugs through no fault of our own. I was fortunate my consultant was able to get mine on the cancer drugs fund after a fight, yet loads cant, maybe more would be available on the NHS if we werent spending money as a result of peoples inaction to help themselves.

 

 

 

[Mafiabob]

1 minute ago, Paul71 said:

My view would still be, if you are capable of working but arent doing...then wait until you are, or do not need the state to support your child, before you choose to have children.

My views on the drain to the system as a result of actions taken by an individual who does not take responsibility may be a bit biased...i hate the fact that i have witnessed throughout my working life so called friends of mine, or friends of friends totally abusing the system, one person i knew actually put stones in his shoes once on a doctors appointment so he would get signed off again, never worked yet stil had kids...who is paying for them?

We see that the NHS spends £5billion a year on obesity related health problems, the east midlands ambulance service is currently replacing all of its 200+ fleet so it can carry people who weigh more than 50 stone...whos paying for this? And yes i know there are those that argue some obese people cant help it and i get that, but we also know a lot more can.

Yet people with cancer...i included...have to fight and struggle to get drugs through no fault of our own. I was fortunate my consultant was able to get mine on the cancer drugs fund after a fight, yet loads cant, maybe more would be available on the NHS if we werent spending money as a result of peoples inaction to help themselves.

 

 

 

Regarding, the guy who got signed off by putting stones in his shoes..... Did you report him? 

Agree there's people who aren't willing to help themselves. Like I've mentioned before, I view these people the same as the multi millionaires who avoid tax at collosus levels. We are the ones who share the burden. 

[eddie]

4 hours ago, Paul71 said:

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.

People's circumstances change.

[EssendonRam]

6 hours ago, Paul71 said:

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.

The concept of a boom gate or two installed to prevent the, shall we say, tactical placement of the D-vice ...preferably with sharpish edges.

And, of course, we could ask Apple or whomever to instal fingerprint readers so the Pope can continue to warn us we will go blind.

[jono]

15 hours ago, bcnram said:

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.

I know what you mean but the problem with that is ...who becomes the judge and decides what is worthy enough to "earn" human rights ? It's a dangerous road. 

a bit like ID cards .. Make perfect sense and the ordinary honest folk shouldn't bat an eyelid at having one. It would make many everyday things a lot simpler but .. I don't think the state has a right to issue what in effect would be a licence to exist. 

Part of life is putting up with ****** and picking up the mess they leave behind. Sad though it is, we have to do in order to sustain a free society. 

 

[StringerBell]

33 minutes ago, jono said:

I know what you mean but the problem with that is ...who becomes the judge and decides what is worthy enough to "earn" human rights ? It's a dangerous road. 

a bit like ID cards .. Make perfect sense and the ordinary honest folk shouldn't bat an eyelid at having one. It would make many everyday things a lot simpler but .. I don't think the state has a right to issue what in effect would be a licence to exist. 

Part of life is putting up with ****** and picking up the mess they leave behind. Sad though it is, we have to do in order to sustain a free society. 

 

I might be getting the wrong end of the stick about what you're saying but I think this is the sort of argument I was referring to on the first page of the thread that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Taking away people's rights when they don't play ball is already built into the fabric of our society. Are you opposed to prisons? They do impinge on the right to free movement after all. Perhaps we should just put up with criminals walking around as a hallmark of a free society.

I mean the state has literally kidnapped over 80,000 people and this is a popular policy. But deny some toerag the right to have yet another kid they won't get to keep, at great expense to the rest of society and to the detriment of other deserving children who need care, and all of a sudden it's time to start agonising over the morality of it. I don't get it.

And as for who becomes the judge? A judge probably.

[LesterRam]

On 09/06/2016 at 21:43, 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?

I'm with you brother, I think if you have a child removed for adoption you should not be able to have more children that will ultimately end the same way.