View Full Version : The hand grenade topic of today is.....
How should we deal with people who so obviously shouldn't be having kids.....
A short background to explain...
A girl I know had a child at the age of 14 - child is now 12 and has been in care for 11 years.... she then had another 2 children & got married in that order... then separated & had another child... said children are now 4, 6 & 8 and now in long term foster care. According to social services they are quote: 'unadoptable'.
The last time the girl lived with her children, their home was fire-bombed by the first father.... the children were taken into care because mum had got involved with heroin. She then went back to live with said fire bomber, who was released by the courts through lack of evidence.
The grandmother worked long & hard to get them out of care & went for custody - but it didn't go well and the mum interfered so much that the courts decided that the children were better off away from any family connections - contact between children and parents has been blocked for over 2 years now.
So.... the mum is now pregnant again... by the same man apparently.... :(
My hubby has quite strong opinions about things like this & his 'hand-grenade' of the day is this:
People like this should be sterilised - if they have their children taken away by the authorities, then they should also have their capabilities of breeding again taken away also.
So... what do you all think?
Personally I think that although it's a very strong view, he has got a point.
I'm getting really sick of seeing people with children who so don't deserve to be parents in the first place - you know, the sort who yell & swear at their kids in the streets... and when you turn to look, you realise the little one is only about 3 years old - what chance do they have?
Maybe Andy's right.
i totally agree with you!
where i live there are lots of people who have numerous of kids and are letting them wonder off, swearing ect, everyone one looked down there nose at me as i got pregnant at 16 and im a better mother than most
i hate people who have kids but dont look after them or say awful things about them when there are people in this world who cannot have children and would do anything to be a parent
Lolabelle
26-Aug-07, 11:11
That's such a sad tale, but I don't think there are ever any easy answers in such cases. Unfortunately. [mad]
That's such a sad tale, but I don't think there are ever any easy answers in such cases. Unfortunately. [mad]
I agree with you Lolabelle - like so many situations, there isn't an easy answer.
I for one don't feel able to come up with an instant response to such a complex issue ...or indeed to comment on an individual case of which I have no personal knowledge.
Sorry! :confused
dont get me started!! I could rant on for weeks about this topic! the amount of people that have children these days but refuse to change their lifestyle they had before,dumping their children with whoever will have them to go out & get drunk every weekend!![disgust] why bother having children if you want the childless lifestyle![evil]
orkneylass
26-Aug-07, 11:33
The problem is that the right to a family is a basic human right ...unfortunately the rights of the child can only ever be applied in retrospect. However, one can't help thinking that anyone who is a serial reproducer...child taken into care...should at least be on a 3 strikes and you're out system...but can we really stomach women being forcibly taken into hospital and operated on....hmmm????
My hubby has quite strong opinions about things like this & his 'hand-grenade' of the day is this:
People like this should be sterilised - if they have their children taken away by the authorities, then they should also have their capabilities of breeding again taken away also.
Start off with the under age mothers and move on to the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals later.
Man is not God, not our decision to make.
I hear what you're saying Fred.... and I try to see most sides of an argument. Whether I agree with all sides or not, I appreciate the fact that there will always be many angles & just coming from a different angle isn't wrong, it's just different.
But I'm wandering around today with a heavy heart after trying to keep the woman from doing harm to her mum or herself last night while waiting for the police & it's not even because of her circumstances yet again... it's because at 4 months pregnant, she was roaring drunk, and on whatever drugs she got her hands on - and whatever angle you look at that from, it's wrong.
I hear what you're saying Fred.... and I try to see most sides of an argument. Whether I agree with all sides or not, I appreciate the fact that there will always be many angles & just coming from a different angle isn't wrong, it's just different.
No it isn't a different angle, it's called eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics), it's exactly how Hitler started and if we go down the same road we will end up in the same place.
orkneylass
26-Aug-07, 13:02
Perhaps we need to tackle things from a more positive point of view, ensuring that fewer teenage girls get pregnant by supporting self-respect, self-esteem, positive choices and a belief in a future they can influence. perhaps we need to support and highlight good parenting practices and normalise responsible parenting and healthy family life. Perhaps we need to remove the stigma of adoption, which these days is less socially acceptable than abortion or single parenting. And we need to tackle the growing influence of black male gang culture that treats women as objects and has no concept of hands-on fatherhood. Don't lets let the young males get off scott free here!!!!So many other things could be looked at that don't go the way of eugenics.
I agree with the model which says that what starts with pointing the finger and name calling ends with the death camps. We need to find other ways.
Lolabelle
26-Aug-07, 13:14
No it isn't a different angle, it's called eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics), it's exactly how Hitler started and if we go down the same road we will end up in the same place.
Get real Fred, no one is saying anything like that, no one is talking about stopping these people breeding to stop the genetic line of a certain trait.
We are all just concerned about the children in this kind of situation. Why are you always trying to demean peoples opinions??? Is is just for an argument? What is wrong with just taking the thread and post in the spirit that they were written in, instead of getting all high and mighty!
Oh and I am posting this in the public forum and not just a pm or bad rep because I am fed up with all the ways simple topics get hijacked and turned into someones soapbox.
Well said Lolabelle - too many threads are used to satisfy some folk's ego.
Express an opinion but don't insult people!
Hmmm... lots of thoughts to think on here...
Orkneylass, my hubby is an adoptee - he carries no stigma, he's quite comfortable with what he had a child and the way he grew up. But I appreciate that not everyone is the same.
As for Hitler.. where on earth did that come from?
The thread was on the topic of parents - mothers in particular who bring children into world only to lose them to the authorities... and then are free to do so again & again.
I would say that whatever race, colour or creed the mothers are is totally immaterial.
Having a child armed with the knowledge that it will be destined for local authority care is a huge pile of writhing snakes....
Another young girl who lived a few doors down, was 17 - had a mental age of 11 & was in foster care - social services refused permission for the 2 Sues to get her on contraception. She's now 18, living in assisted accommodation and 7 months pregnant. The plans are that the child is to be adopted.
All could have been avoided.
(By the way, everyone I'm talking about here is white/british)
Metalattakk
26-Aug-07, 14:30
I have to admire the views of talkSPORT's James Whale on this matter.
He insists that every boy child should be sterilised at birth. When the child reaches adulthood and expresses a desire to further the species, he has to sit an exam - a parenthood test as it were - where his abilities (both moral and financial) are assessed and only then, after passing the test, can he have his operation reversed and is then free to procreate.
Of course, medically this would most likely be impossible to do, and morally it would be reprehensible, but the point I think he's trying to make is that the young parents of today are the least well-equipped to deal with the responsibility of parenthood of all time.
So how exactly do we teach our kids to be responsible parents? The moral decline over the recent few decades is rather startling, is it not?
Now you can apportion blame on all sorts of things - a decline in religious indoctrination, the ever-present influence of the TV and its fantasy-world, the lack of discipline in schools, etc., etc., etc.
But when it comes down to it, we learn most of all from our parents. And taking that a little further - the children of these young parents today are learning from those same morally bereft parents. It's a vicious circle.
I'm afraid there is no easy answer, in fact I believe we're all going to hell in a hand-cart.
Educating some folk about contraception is a waste of time, it just falls on deaf ears. When I was in hospital with my second there was a woman who was having baby number 7 but 3 of her kids were already in care, I completely see your point Julie that if you can't look after the ones you have then don't have any more but to forcibly sterilise someone is not the way to go either, that just sounds horrific, what if the authorities got it wrong and a woman lost her ability to have kids due to a mistake, lets face it social services have made just a few mistakes!
Maybe a system where if your children are taken into care through your own actions then the parents be obligated to attend long-term parenting classes, a financial or custodial consequence of having your children placed in care should definitely be in place!
I agree with Metalattakk, we are indeed all going to hell in a hand cart!
im afriad the first thing i thought was, if we start sterilising whom we see to be unfit as parents, it is in the same line as the nazis. but as has been said, there are so many sides to things, nothing is that clear cut.
i think that where things do go wrong, a good support system is needed. family, social services etc..
and i do think it is abit unfair to say that you see someone shouting at their child in the street makes them a bad parent. you may have no idea how they are the rest of the time. everyone has days where things are too much.
But as Brie said, people don't want to change their current lifestyle. some people see their children as an inconvience. I dont know if anyone else saw the article in the daily mail last week, the women who said 10 reaons not to have children. her attitude was awful.
Attitudes have changed, not all for the better.
Does being taken into care in the circumstances described by the OP mean automatically being put up for adoption, or is it a case that the child is stuck there in no-mans land waiting for the mother to get her act together?
Because, in some clearly defined circumstances, I'd have thought that it would be better for a child to be put up for adoption immediately and the parent's rights removed completely from the start.
Where there is no reasonable prospect of a parent being able or wanting to cope..........it should be possible to remove a child and refuse to allow the parent any say in the matter.
lady penelope
26-Aug-07, 15:12
This is very sad and although seems a recent phenomenon drugs, unwanted pregnancy and alcohol abuse has been around a long time.
My own mother is over 60 and was adopted at the age of 3 because her mother abandoned her to her own mother who died.
This will never change but it is more out in the open and obvious these days.
Maybe councilling and support, advice and nurturing is what this family needs or better contaception!
He without sin cast the first stone.
Not one of us is a 'perfect' parent.
I myself am a fully paid up member of the Bad Mothers Club:D
Does being taken into care in the circumstances described by the OP mean automatically being put up for adoption, or is it a case that the child is stuck there in no-mans land waiting for the mother to get her act together?
Hey Oddquine, in this particular case with the young ex-foster girl, her baby is going straight for adoption - in her own words last week 'which will be ok, 'cos I don't want some brat keeping me awake'..... very sad, but we expect that she won't be seeking contraception afterwards, & so the circle goes round again.
I have to admire the views of talkSPORT's James Whale on this matter.
He insists that every boy child should be sterilised at birth. When the child reaches adulthood and expresses a desire to further the species, he has to sit an exam - a parenthood test as it were - where his abilities (both moral and financial) are assessed and only then, after passing the test, can he have his operation reversed and is then free to procreate.
Of course, medically this would most likely be impossible to do, and morally it would be reprehensible, but the point I think he's trying to make is that the young parents of today are the least well-equipped to deal with the responsibility of parenthood of all time.
And this is exactly Andy's point of view too!
He points out to people who disagree with him, that as adults, we have to take a test before we are deemed fit to drive & take responsibility for the massive lump of metal we manhandle through our streets, we have to prove competency & hold a licence to own & use a gun, we have sit exams and training before we are deemed adequate to work in our careers, so why should parenting be any different? In his view it should be more stringent - especially when it comes to the responsibility of a young life.
I don't hold with all of his views, and some of them I do.... to a point.
But then he's a 'Boro lad - it's either black or it's white and heaven forbid any shades of grey should creep in!
Get real Fred, no one is saying anything like that, no one is talking about stopping these people breeding to stop the genetic line of a certain trait.
We are all just concerned about the children in this kind of situation. Why are you always trying to demean peoples opinions??? Is is just for an argument? What is wrong with just taking the thread and post in the spirit that they were written in, instead of getting all high and mighty!
Oh and I am posting this in the public forum and not just a pm or bad rep because I am fed up with all the ways simple topics get hijacked and turned into someones soapbox.
I am being real. Hitler didn't start with gas chambers, he started with the forced sterilisation of the mentally handicapped. At the same time in Orange county USA they were doing the same thing, every school child had to sit an exam and if they didn't make the grade they were sterilised.
Yes what was proposed is eugenics, if the call was for all girls under 16 who get pregnant to be sterilised not just those of a certain social class it might just be debatable but that wasn't the case here.
orkneylass
26-Aug-07, 16:05
You completely misunderstand me - the stigma is with the mother, not the child. People are disgusted nowadays if a women gives up a child for adoption wehreas it could be the most unselfish and responsible thing she could do. Few people are ostracised for having an abortion or being a single parent. It used to be the other way round.
This is very sad and although seems a recent phenomenon drugs, unwanted pregnancy and alcohol abuse has been around a long time.
My own mother is over 60 and was adopted at the age of 3 because her mother abandoned her to her own mother who died.
This will never change but it is more out in the open and obvious these days.
Maybe councilling and support, advice and nurturing is what this family needs or better contaception!
He without sin cast the first stone.
Not one of us is a 'perfect' parent.
I myself am a fully paid up member of the Bad Mothers Club:D
Yes it was not uncommon in those days for young girls to get pregnant, I know of a few cases where the child was taken into care and in later life for the girl to marry and bring up a loving family. It was also not uncommon in those days for young girls who got pregnant to be committed. There are still a few about today in their eighties and nineties who have spent their entire lives in institutions for the crime of getting pregnant too young.
You completely misunderstand me - the stigma is with the mother, not the child. People are disgusted nowadays if a women gives up a child for adoption wehreas it could be the most unselfish and responsible thing she could do. Few people are ostracised for having an abortion or being a single parent. It used to be the other way round.
That's very true, orkneylass, although I'm sure there would have been mothers who were pressured into giving up their babies for adoption, who could have made good mothers, given enough support. I know this did happen as recently as the supposedly liberal 1960s. It just wasn't acceptable to be an "unmarried mother", or indeed for couples to live together outwith marriage.
Researching my Caithness family tree, I've certainly found many children born out of wedlock, who were brought up within the mother's family. Sometimes the woman a child thought of as "mother" was in fact grandmother. There was a huge stigma attached to being born out of wedlock - that awful "illegtimate" stamp on the birth certificate, as if it was the child's fault.
I do believe adoption can be a very good and positive thing, however, and provide a child with a stable and loving home. Perhaps now there is sometimes too much emphasis on the biological bond being paramount?
orkneylass
26-Aug-07, 18:30
well said Angela. As someone who was emotionally abused by her biological mother throughout childhood and beyond, I would never take it for granted that the biological parent is the best carer for a child.
well said Angela. As someone who was emotionally abused by her biological mother throughout childhood and beyond, I would never take it for granted that the biological parent is the best carer for a child.
I'll second that Orkneylass.
And I apologise for misunderstanding the earlier comment re: stigma.
Andy's real mum gave him up at 8months because of pressure from her father..... it back fired however, because when he found his real parents, he also found that his dad got his mum pregnant again & they HAD to get married.... so Andy found his 2 sisters & a brother as well!
As for the comments about underage mums, well maybe not in all cases, but actually there are some 'underage' mums out there who do very well!
And yes, I trained as an RNMS in the early 80's and in our institution were often unmarried mums, kleptomaniacs, orphans, etc - all elderly at that point, but that was the law of the time - if the laws still stood today, would the problem be as big? And before anyone starts, NO, I'm not saying it was right, I'm just saying that there were laws in place to try & deter the problems - unlike today, where the problems are becoming the norm.
Hubby reports tonight that while he flicked through the paper today , there was a cartoon of the 1970's and today. In the 1970's, it showed 2 lads playing cowboys & indians with toy weapons... in todays it showed a lad on a pushbike with a hoodie & a real gun. Food for thought.
grumpyhippo
26-Aug-07, 19:02
I'm confused, where did this 'every one has a right to have children' come from. A right is something that has to be earned. If you wish to have children then you have to at least try to conform to some the norms of society especially if you want the help of that same society if thing go amiss.
If the community is going to have to step in to pick up the pieces because of some irresponsible bampots' lack of adherance to accepted behavior standards then I think it only proper that that community is able to set a morally acceptable norm to give guidance to the socially challanged. If individuals fail to adhere to these guidlines then they shouldn't complain when the community tells them enough is enough and starts treating them like social pariahs.
percy toboggan
26-Aug-07, 19:36
Double child benefit for twelve months for anyone who successfully completes a parenting course.
Castrate men who father children by more than two different women.Unless they financially support all of them and maintain close contact.
Bobinovich
26-Aug-07, 20:05
Going back to Andy's original idea I don't feel that sterilisation is right, but some form of contraception which is automatically administered (i.e. implants or the like) would provide the necessary protection.
If the mother manages to sort out her life(style) and prove herself capable of resuming her role then, after a successful transition period, the implants could be removed.
I also feel that males should be far more responsible for their actions, and that from 1st year of high school there should be a compulsory course - say Life 101 - which continues throughout schooling. From looking after 'smart' doll babies, basic cooking, form filling, money management, mock interviews, courtesy/manners (although this should be drilled in in the formative years, a 'refresher' course would not go amis.), etc. then I believe we'd have a lot less problems with kids when they left school.
lady penelope
26-Aug-07, 20:13
My boys are constantly reminded and encouraged about being morally aware of their actions. I quite agree with you Bobinovich. Parents should also take some responsibility while their childen are still young enough to absorb the information.
Right this minute, I vote Bobinovich for President & Percy as Vice!
It's been a hell of a day......
Bob and Lady P, I'm in agreement with you here.
I do believe that our Celebrity Culture, promoting as it does the image of a baby as a sort of desirable fashion accessory, regardless of whether there is any stable relationship between its parents, must take some blame for children growing up with some very odd and undesirable role models.
But let's not forget that there are many responsible and caring young parents, doing a great job of bringing up their kids, and many young fathers are much more involved with their children's upbringing than was the case with previous generations.:)
orkneylass
26-Aug-07, 20:34
I'm confused, where did this 'every one has a right to have children' come from. A right is something that has to be earned. If you wish to have children then you have to at least try to conform to some the norms of society especially if you want the help of that same society if thing go amiss.
If the community is going to have to step in to pick up the pieces because of some irresponsible bampots' lack of adherance to accepted behavior standards then I think it only proper that that community is able to set a morally acceptable norm to give guidance to the socially challanged. If individuals fail to adhere to these guidlines then they shouldn't complain when the community tells them enough is enough and starts treating them like social pariahs.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
The bit in "dignity" about eugenics and the bit about a right to family life under freedoms would win in court every time against ideas of forced sterilisations etc
"A right is something that has to be earned?" Is that what is on the mind of a drunk teenager in a bus shelter when having sex? I don't think so.
thefugitive1993
26-Aug-07, 20:36
I am being real. Hitler didn't start with gas chambers, he started with the forced sterilisation of the mentally handicapped. At the same time in Orange county USA they were doing the same thing, every school child had to sit an exam and if they didn't make the grade they were sterilised.
Yes what was proposed is eugenics, if the call was for all girls under 16 who get pregnant to be sterilised not just those of a certain social class it might just be debatable but that wasn't the case here.
I don't think you can extrapolate outcome from the actions of a deranged lunatic. If Hitler came up for a new recipe for beef, it would have no automatic implications for others who come up with new recipes. Furthermore, Hitler was a successful chancelor before he went off the rails.
orkneylass
26-Aug-07, 20:39
Did Hitler act alone then or was he democratically elected and widely supported? To treat him as a lunatic acting alone is to miss the far scarier reality of mob mentality.
fingalmacool
26-Aug-07, 20:47
Sadly there is no answer to this problem, it is catch 22 in its meanest form. there was a train of thought (government) that if a single woman had a child and she didnt have the support of the father,and or wouldnt give up the father to the authorities, she would get state help for the first, but if she had another child, and again no sign of the father then she would receive no further help from the state, sounds good and fair, however all that would happen is the child would land in care quicker. kids born to single mums have in my opinion not increased by much in caithness since i darkened the door of the High school in the early 70s,and i think at this time Thurso high was on the front page of the record for having the highest percentage of gymslip mums, so were single mums made of stronger stuff in these days did they raise their kids with lots of help from their families, i would say probably yes, a high percentage of the single mums targeted in this thread are sadly not blessed with the knowledge or family back up to cope with their problems and take the easy option of giving the child to the state, and it is galling that they continue to have children with no thought of ever bringing them up. So where does that leave us, education has been thrown at these people for years, not working, I think it will have to be radical to sort the problem out, but the human rights people will have a field day. The problem is only getting more bizaar as we type, heard on the street other day that there is a situation in caithness at the moment where a young man has made pregnant his girlfriend, who is his cousin and her mother, when these kids are born what are they going to be to each other, can somebody work this out for me.
Fraser Macleod
26-Aug-07, 21:25
I agree with Fred, taking away someone’s ability to reproduce takes away one of the fundamental elements of being human, it degrades them and ultimately removes them from the human species because of their inability to further it (this is of course not suggesting that people who are infertile are sub-human, merely that it would be wrong to force sterilisation upon anyone).
Assuming that you're better than someone else and therefore believing that they should be stripped of their ability to procreate and function as part of a community is scarily close to the beliefs of the NSDAP (Nazi's). Because once you've decided one category is unacceptable to become parents it just makes it easier to choose another social group and label them as unworthy too.
If you are generally concerned for children living in a poor and detrimental environment then perhaps you should do something useful and fair like starting support groups for teenage or single parents, take an active role in teaching children the importance of using contraception instead of sitting behind a computer screen saying that the kids won't listen, surely positive support is better than cutting people up because you've deemed them second class and yourselves first class. We dont perform frontal lobotomies anymore because its deemed morally unacceptable, and this is exactly the same, what gives anyone the right to judge?
And out of interest how do you propose we test peoples suitability to be parents? that’s like trying to predict the future, its thoroughly impossible. No one knows whether they'll be good parents or not until they’ve had children because its a unique experience for every individual and some of the best parents can be found in some of the worst social classes and similarly some of the worst parents are the ones on the opposite end of the sociological spectrum.
Think seriously about whether you'd want your own children to have the joy that you had in raising them taken away simply because they couldn't pass a test?
Thanks and Ciao
Hey Oddquine, in this particular case with the young ex-foster girl, her baby is going straight for adoption - in her own words last week 'which will be ok, 'cos I don't want some brat keeping me awake'..... very sad, but we expect that she won't be seeking contraception afterwards, & so the circle goes round again.
At least there will be a ready supply of babies for adoption..........and there is a ready supply of prospective adoptive parents, who have to prove, unlike biological parents, that they are capable of bringing up a child.
grumpyhippo
26-Aug-07, 22:16
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
The bit in "dignity" about eugenics and the bit about a right to family life under freedoms would win in court every time against ideas of forced sterilisations etc
"A right is something that has to be earned?" Is that what is on the mind of a drunk teenager in a bus shelter when having sex? I don't think so.
Thats the trouble, too many people who think they have too many rights to do do exactly as they want, and damn the consequences. The Charter of European Rights should be ammended to have a Chapter VIII.... 'The Responsiblities of the Citizen and Their Place in the Community'.
thefugitive1993
26-Aug-07, 22:30
Did Hitler act alone then or was he democratically elected and widely supported? To treat him as a lunatic acting alone is to miss the far scarier reality of mob mentality.
Absolutely
I agree with Fred, taking away someone’s ability to reproduce takes away one of the fundamental elements of being human, it degrades them and ultimately removes them from the human species because of their inability to further it (this is of course not suggesting that people who are infertile are sub-human, merely that it would be wrong to force sterilisation upon anyone).
Assuming that you're better than someone else and therefore believing that they should be stripped of their ability to procreate and function as part of a community is scarily close to the beliefs of the NSDAP (Nazi's). Because once you've decided one category is unacceptable to become parents it just makes it easier to choose another social group and label them as unworthy too.
If you are generally concerned for children living in a poor and detrimental environment then perhaps you should do something useful and fair like starting support groups for teenage or single parents, take an active role in teaching children the importance of using contraception instead of sitting behind a computer screen saying that the kids won't listen, surely positive support is better than cutting people up because you've deemed them second class and yourselves first class. We dont perform frontal lobotomies anymore because its deemed morally unacceptable, and this is exactly the same, what gives anyone the right to judge?
And out of interest how do you propose we test peoples suitability to be parents? that’s like trying to predict the future, its thoroughly impossible. No one knows whether they'll be good parents or not until they’ve had children because its a unique experience for every individual and some of the best parents can be found in some of the worst social classes and similarly some of the worst parents are the ones on the opposite end of the sociological spectrum.
Think seriously about whether you'd want your own children to have the joy that you had in raising them taken away simply because they couldn't pass a test?
Thanks and Ciao
I agree with everything that you say and you put your point over so better than I could have done.:D
vodka-queen
27-Aug-07, 00:38
I think it is unreal the amount of people i know who have children that are either not looked after or mistreated is unreal!!
Think about all the people who can not have children n then others popping them out like pringles
thefugitive1993
27-Aug-07, 10:11
I agree with Fred, taking away someone’s ability to reproduce takes away one of the fundamental elements of being human, it degrades them and ultimately removes them from the human species because of their inability to further it (this is of course not suggesting that people who are infertile are sub-human, merely that it would be wrong to force sterilisation upon anyone).
Assuming that you're better than someone else and therefore believing that they should be stripped of their ability to procreate and function as part of a community is scarily close to the beliefs of the NSDAP (Nazi's). Because once you've decided one category is unacceptable to become parents it just makes it easier to choose another social group and label them as unworthy too.
If you are generally concerned for children living in a poor and detrimental environment then perhaps you should do something useful and fair like starting support groups for teenage or single parents, take an active role in teaching children the importance of using contraception instead of sitting behind a computer screen saying that the kids won't listen, surely positive support is better than cutting people up because you've deemed them second class and yourselves first class. We dont perform frontal lobotomies anymore because its deemed morally unacceptable, and this is exactly the same, what gives anyone the right to judge?
And out of interest how do you propose we test peoples suitability to be parents? that’s like trying to predict the future, its thoroughly impossible. No one knows whether they'll be good parents or not until they’ve had children because its a unique experience for every individual and some of the best parents can be found in some of the worst social classes and similarly some of the worst parents are the ones on the opposite end of the sociological spectrum.
Think seriously about whether you'd want your own children to have the joy that you had in raising them taken away simply because they couldn't pass a test?
Thanks and Ciao
Fraser, your points are well made; however the chatroom is just people having their say. I don't think that the fact they're behind their computer screens implies they have no social conscience, or indicates what actions, if any, they take when the computers are switched off.
I would give your spelling an A and due to your reasoned argument, we will not sterilise you at present.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.