Protecting Our Children - BBC2 - 9pm - 30th Jan

[Yammas]

I doubt she would have taken it though tbh and in some circumstances a person could have a child taken away then later turn their lives around and decide that they are ready and able to be a good parent.

 

[feeble]

Agreed, sterilisation to me gives the impression that people cannot change, or that in her long life she will never be ready to be a mama.

I would much rather they pushed the 3 year injection, the 5 year implant or a coil on peopl who showed that they (currently) could not care for children.

But i think such things should be mandatory for those receiving full welfare payments anyway (which is a whole nother thread)

 

[Yammas]

I agree with the long term contraception as I'd be offended if someone told me I had to be permenantly prevented from having children due to circumstances which could change over time,

I dont see how they would enforce it especially with welfare or benefits, would they have a cerftificate to show that you were on contraception what if it fails???

 

[feeble]

Yep, i think a certificate of proof that you are in control of your own reproduction would be a massive asset to our benefit culture.

If it didnt work, no body could say that was the fault of the mother could they? Just because something is not infallible, does not make it redundant

 

[Yammas]

Yes that is true but then when one does it everyone else will see it as unfair and you cant force someone to take birth control, if they did there would be a national uproar as nice an idea as it is.

 

[feeble]

your not forcing them, they do not 'have' to be on the dole it is their choice.

I actually think the public would be quite receptive to the idea right now lol

i see it as no different as being in a two person relationship, where one is the main breadwinner and has a say in how many children they can afford to care for. In lieu of there being a main breadwinner, the social is that role and should have some say (in my eyes) on the amount of children it can afford.

 

[Blah11]

Agreed, sterilisation to me gives the impression that people cannot change, or that in her long life she will never be ready to be a mama.

I would much rather they pushed the 3 year injection, the 5 year implant or a coil on peopl who showed that they (currently) could not care for children.

But i think such things should be mandatory for those receiving full welfare payments anyway (which is a whole nother thread)

thats a horrid idea bordering on eugenics imo.

 

[smelly07]

there is nothing wrong in still suggestion sterilzation to people in these situations imo.

did martha have 3 pregnancies in 4 years.........? resulting in 4 babies (1 set of twins) all taken in to care??? whos to say she doesnt have another 10 that all get taken in to care before the slight possibilty she may turn her life around.

and maybe if she did get sterilized and turned her life around she could fight for one of her children who havent found adopted parents or adopt herself???? x

 

[ttc_lolly]

I agree - sterilisation is a bit too extreme, but maybe suggesting long term birth control (coil, implant) would be a good idea. Suggestion only of course!

Of course that little boy shouldn't have had to go through what he did when Marva took him out and he was without food but all I can think of is at LEAST a loving, caring couple/individual who may be fertility challenged has now been given the greatest gift of all.

 

[feeble]

Agreed, sterilisation to me gives the impression that people cannot change, or that in her long life she will never be ready to be a mama.

I would much rather they pushed the 3 year injection, the 5 year implant or a coil on peopl who showed that they (currently) could not care for children.

But i think such things should be mandatory for those receiving full welfare payments anyway (which is a whole nother thread)

thats a horrid idea bordering on eugenics imo.

I understand, i am a bit extreme!

I still feel it would have a huge positive impact on society though x

 

[Nibblenic]

With all the drink and drugs in both of them i have no idea how they managed to conceive anyway.
However we are forgetting the other party. That man had 7 children taken from him, 4 of those Marvas. Why not sterilise him?

I do agree that longterm contraception should have been pushed here. Can you make is mandatory, I dunno it just doesnt sit comfortably with me but neither does people having babies, not looking after them in the womb then going straight into care at birth

 

[Yammas]

7 children is a lot I wonder what happened to the mother of the first 3??? also maybe if he was allowed to keep his previous children he wouldnt have gone on to have more and they would have been his reason to turn his life around.

As for the contraception on benefits I think it goes against human rights and it is foricing them as they wont get any kind of support if they refuse so then what are they supposed to do when they have a baby with no means to support it??? on the other hand there does need to be a limit.

 

[feeble]

How would you enforce a limit though? At some point your going to have to say 'there is no money for this child you have had or any subsequent you have' which is infringing on the human rights of the child more than anything, whereas by making sterilisation mandatory, that would (possibly) be infringing on the mothers human rights, but not affecting the children, who would be cared for by the state as is the situation now...

anyway this is interesting but waaaay off topic! sorry guys x

 

[smelly07]

i completely agree the snip should of also been suggested to him with all their other options, i think ALL options/suggestions should be given without fear of upsetting, especially when babies are born with possible health issues (due to alcohol/drug abuse) and put in care.


The benefit one is a tough one, i do wonder what people would do if there was no help....? would there be less children in the world ? or more living in poverty ?

 

[feeble]

I think some would continue to have kids i am afraid... I think people would be living in poverty, i think children would be living in poverty...

lets not forget, people bred like rabbits before the welfare state, there is nothing to sugget they would not continue to do so...

 

[Yammas]

Yes but at least the THEY would pay for rhemn as insensitive as it is to say ... and only pay CB for the first 2 vhildren would be one way or only half for the second child onwards.

 

[feeble]

Who would pay for them?

I have seen people spend 50 quid a week on fags and booze when the family money 'pot' is only 100 quid.

your suggesting that we just reduce it down so that if they have more kids they wont get money for them and you think these people will actually put the kids first? I can tell you (from first hand experience) that they will not.

 

[Yammas]

Sorry I should have been clearer I meant that the parents of these children will pay for them instead of relying on benefits.

Unfortunately there will always be people like that but you cant punish everyone else.

 

[feeble]

I realise that is what you meant, but it's quite obvious that (many) parents will not pay for those children, they are happy now to keep them on less than optimum diets, in clothes that are falling apart and with little support even with benefits for each child.

If you took away (The child's) benefit, it is the children who would suffer, not the parents.

For me it comes down to what is more important, the rights of the child to food/clothing/a bed to sleep in, or the rights of the parents to breed. And I will choose the former every time.

 

[Blah11]

Sorry I don't think it's ever going to be a good or even moral idea to take money away from children :\ fair enough if its just adults involved but those children didn't ask to be born, they don't deserve to live in poverty.


eta - I don't know what my solution would be as I don't agree with sterilisation or taking their benefits away unless they get on the coil or whatever. In general (please note the GENERAL before anyone jumps in) people living 100% off benefits are those who are lower class and to stop them having children sort of makes me think that only the educated and rich deserve children IYKWIM?