[Niall]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The ONLY way to do that would be to lock them up for life.

Which I would also be happy with. Unfortunately we dont do that and give them paltry sentences like 18 months.

I disagree that its the only way but fair enough if thats your view.

Yeah I agree sentences should be harsher but with prisons as overcrowded as they are I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Doogle]

I wish they'd do this to all the people in my area, I swear 90% are not fit to be parents

But no I think in extreme cases maybe, but only extreme cases.

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would be all for this only in cases where it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the parent is unfit and the child would suffer because of it.

[2]

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

my sister used to foster and the mother of the kid she was fostering at the time was determined to have 10 kids, she already had 6 kids and all of them were in care but she carried on knowing that as soon as she gave birth the child would be taken away from her

she was obviously retarded or something idk /relevant

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I agree with Niall, I don't think we should ever give someone the power to decide who's fit to be a parent and who isn't, and forcibly sterilise the latter, that's never ended well historically and the sort of power that is very open to abuse

Even when theres video evidence of her beating the **** out of a defencless chilld?

Surely that video proves she is not fit to look after a child? lol

[Niall]

Like I said in the other thread, never should it be done. Not only is it an infringement on human rights, but its also the start of a slippery slope. I mean after passing a law that allows forced sterilisation, who's to stop us say, lobotomising those who don't comply with the law? Or (like in Sharia law), chopping off someones hand for theft?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

Would you allow a convicted paedophile the right to have children?

It isn't my place to "allow" people to have children

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Scott

my sister used to foster and the mother of the kid she was fostering at the time was determined to have 10 kids, she already had 6 kids and all of them were in care but she carried on knowing that as soon as she gave birth the child would be taken away from her

I know someone like this. I think shes onto her 8th child now(she looks about 7/8months pregnant at the moment...I dont speak to her, but I know her) and each time she has them they are took into care. Why keep having them and putting strain on an already bursting system?

She doesnt even take care when pregnant either, she smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish (and I mean drinks HEAVILY) and eats a load of ****e. I have seen the drinking and smoking first hand the other night(went through around 20 tabs in 3 hours, and drank approx 6 pints of snakebite)...the eating is just what people say

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

How is it not an inherent right to have children when it's something that happens 100% naturally?

Not in that way. In the way that there are certain ways to bring up a child. You cannot just treat a child in any way you see fit. Many parents have their children taken away from them by social services due to neglect etc. A parent has a certain responsibility towards a child.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It isn't my place to "allow" people to have children

That is quite obvious. I shall re-phrase for you then. Would you be happy with the fact that convicted paedophiles were allowed to have children.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

Not in that way. In the way that there are certain ways to bring up a child. You cannot just treat a child in any way you see fit. Many parents have their children taken away from them by social services due to neglect etc. A parent has a certain responsibility towards a child.

I agree, I just don't think we should use videos like this to try and justify introducing something such as forced sterilisation

[Marsh.]

There was a girl who lived on our street a few years back, she casually still went and got hammered with her friends every weekend despite being pregnant. It's just selfishness.
You see all the children at my little brother's school for the disabled and it's filled with children with serious conditions a lot of which are caused by heavy drinkers or smokers.

That's something that needs looking at from the law, prosecuting those who are entirely at fault for their child's conditions.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I agree, I just don't think we should use videos like this to try and justify introducing something such as forced sterilisation

I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow. People are just giving their views and trying to explain them. Incidents like this spark debate.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niall

I disagree that its the only way but fair enough if thats your view.

I'm actually intruiged...what other ways could you ban someone from having kids and monitor them to make sure they are doing it without having them under 24 hour surveilance?

[Shaun]

Sounds like a nice idea of getting rid of wicked parents but:

a) how the hell would it even be carried out? The road it would take to make it okay to capture someone and sterilise them is ridiculous.
b) what are the boundaries? Hitting a child a couple of times? Being a paedophile (but never actually acting upon your paedophilia)?

It's just never going to happen and rightly so. It reeks of the Middle Ages.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

That is quite obvious. I shall re-phrase for you then. Would you be happy with the fact that convicted paedophiles were allowed to have children.

Not "happy" as such but if you're asking me should all paedophiles be forcibly sterilised my answer would be no. This article here makes some interesting points about this

I'll ask you, would you draw the line at paedophiles? Why not drug addicts, alcoholics, people convicted of assault etc. etc. who might also constitute a risk to a child?

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I'm actually intruiged...what other ways could you ban someone from having kids and monitor them to make sure they are doing it without having them under 24 hour surveilance?

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

There was a girl who lived on our street a few years back, she casually still went and got hammered with her friends every weekend despite being pregnant. It's just selfishness.
You see all the children at my little brother's school for the disabled and it's filled with children with serious conditions a lot of which are caused by heavy drinkers or smokers.

That's something that needs looking at from the law, prosecuting those who are entirely at fault for their child's conditions.

I agree with this totally.

Its a form of child abuse before the child even enters the world

I feel a bit of a hypocrite saying that though, as I am currently still smoking but have cut down to about 3 a day before cutting it out totally...but I cut a LOT the second I found out I was pregnant. I also no longer drink, at all. And now eat relatively healthy.

[MTVN]

Might move the posts over, hang on

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niall

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

How would that stop them? They could just have sex with some randomer while the social worker wasnt there...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niall

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

How is that stopping them conceiving a child though?

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Sounds like a nice idea of getting rid of wicked parents but:

a) how the hell would it even be carried out? The road it would take to make it okay to capture someone and sterilise them is ridiculous.
b) what are the boundaries? Hitting a child a couple of times? Being a paedophile (but never actually acting upon your paedophilia)?

It's just never going to happen and rightly so. It reeks of the Middle Ages.

This.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

How would that stop them? They could just have sex with some randomer while the social worker wasnt there...

Well if it were a woman it'd be easy to see if she was pregnant or not and had violated her ban. She's start showing eventually.

If its a man? Well I'm stumped.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niall

Well if it were a woman it'd be easy to see if she was pregnant or not and had violated her ban. She's start showing eventually.

If its a man? Well I'm stumped.

So what would be done if they had 'violated the ban'?

I thought this was a way to stop them conceiving in the first place?

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Niall

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

Pfft what an un thought out simplified way of thinking.

Sending a social worker around a few times a week is not good enough as seen in the Baby P incident.

Yes she has the right to get pregnant but then that baby should be taken away from her as soon as its born for its own safety. In my opinion she has no right to have full custody of any further children as she is a threat!