FabSwingers.com forum: Compulsory Sterilisation

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Imagine there's a woman, she has 6 kids already. All 6 have been taken into care because she was an unfit mother due to alcohol and drug abuse. She is often homeless as she does not maintain her tenancy and she floats from one abusive or complicated relationship to the next.

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astyEricMan
over a year ago

Hull

No, I know its not really good scenario, but gov should not have right to interfere with anyone's body or decisions. And you never know them kids could grow up to be good leaders, because of being in Foster care

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I see what you mean OP but I don't know if a law would be the right way about it. I mean such a woman might have her kids to be put in prison for 3 squares and a bed, or if she is put in prison then that's more kids up for adoption.

On the other side, those 6 1/2 kids you mentioned might go to homes full of love and they might be parented by people who aren't able to have kids of their own.

That's a tough one but should lead to a very interesting discussion

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *SAchickWoman
over a year ago

Hillside desolate

No, I think she should get the help she needs for the underlying issues that cause her to behave this way.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wow, that's a tough one. I imagine it'd be almost impossible to pass a law that would allow compulsory sterilisation. Likewise being forced into contraception.

Imagine the shitstorm human rights lawyers would kick up.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She should be offered a choice thru court sterilisation or if she is preggers again go to jail do not collect £200

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rwhowhatwherewhyMan
over a year ago

Aylesbury

I do, along with it's of other people whose actions are not quite comparable. To bear children should be a privilege not a right.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The support for people that fall through the net just isn't there

We either imprison them, hospitalise them or allow them to barely function whilst allowing society to demonise them

I think forced sterilisation is a dangerous step to make

Who's next?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aul DeUther-OneMan
over a year ago

Sussex

If the woman should be sterilised then the errant fathers of the children should be sterilised too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Imagine there's a woman, she has 6 kids already. All 6 have been taken into care because she was an unfit mother due to alcohol and drug abuse. She is often homeless as she does not maintain her tenancy and she floats from one abusive or complicated relationship to the next.

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "
No do you not think that trying to control everything in life, without controlling the ability for humans to be restricted from the one thing they were designed for to reprocreate is all getting a bit to much as it is, we have cameras watching the ' innocent ' everywhere they go, we have government officials tapping into our online and private business, we have, parking wardens slapping tickets on our cars for parking them where we want to go and traffic police hitting us with fines for driving our cars to the potential they were designed for, we have social workers taking people's children away from them sometimes not always for really quite ridiculous reasons. We are policed in everything we do, does freedom exist anymore? That woman needs restricting somehow yes but the need to make this something that can be an acceptable norm NO. People make mistakes but nobody is restricting the countries in the world from reproducing at rates that are becoming totally consuming for them countries and their resources, that for me is more irresponsible.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

No. It's a scary thought that government could mandate something with such a deep impact on the individual level. Sets a precedent that would surely be followed by another, then another. It's already doing its part through CPS with the removal of the children from a very risky situation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If the woman should be sterilised then the errant fathers of the children should be sterilised too. "

Sterilise all men. They then have to apply for a temporary reversal when the man and a suitable woman can prove they are capable of looking after a child.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

On the other side of the coin, like in China(though they have relaxed slightly), perhaps there should be a cap on the amount of children a family can have anyway. This one is based on the decline in health of the big spinning rock we're on due to over population. Nothing seems to destroy the planet quite like a bunch of humans so maybe its time to limit that destruction on a global scale?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No I don't think so. I know of a case where a neighbour's kids were taken off her because she was d*unk all the time and could not look after them. The reason she turned to drink was because her daughter had an asthma attack at school and ended up disabled because of it.

That lady is now recovered and has a new baby.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eliWoman
over a year ago

No (slippery slope), I do however think there should be greater availability of resources to aid women/people like her.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, there needs to be more help put in place for people like this. As for the baby being taken into care there’s a good chance a great family who is unable to have children will adopt and love this child as their own.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford

"No, I think she should get the help she needs for the underlying issues that cause her to behave this way. "

This, exactly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arkb73Man
over a year ago

Cheshire/Staffs

Well, the Nazis did similar so draw your own conclusions (anyone quoting Goodwins Law can kiss my peachy bottom)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *adbury girlWoman
over a year ago

Lanarkshire

People do recover from addiction issues and go on to have a family so don’t think compulsory sterilisation would be appropriate although I understand your thoughts on it. The danger in passing a law like this is where does it stop - should we sterilise people on benefits as they are not financially independent so would be adding to the financial burden of society by creating another life dependent on the state - that’s where many politicians would start heading

Contraception is offered and a lot of work put into persuading a woman in a chaotic lifestyle to accept this not only to protect any children she may have but to save her going through the trauma of losing a child.

They sometimes accept the implant then take it out themselves. It is an area professionals work hard at trying to resolve but not an easy one to tackle

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heekyFlirtyCoupleCouple
over a year ago

Stockport

What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits...... "

Yes!

With regards to the original op. That will never happen but I do think child benefit and whatever other benefits there are should be limited to a certain amount of children and all this has to have 3 bedrooms because they have a boy and a girl rubbish should go too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits......

Yes!

Yeah, let's make the children suffer for something that isn't their fault

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits......

Yes!

Yeah, let's make the children suffer for something that isn't their fault

What by sharing a room? Ok

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits......

Yes!

Yeah, let's make the children suffer for something that isn't their fault

What by sharing a room? Ok "

I was referring to the cutting of benefits

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

No, a woman’s body so a woman’s choice

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits......

Yes!

Yeah, let's make the children suffer for something that isn't their fault

What by sharing a room? Ok

I was referring to the cutting of benefits "

What do you suggest then? As what is in the op is never going to happen. People should just have as many as they like even if they can’t afford to?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

The issue with this is you are condeming her to the idea that she can not recovery from her life as it is.

Also you are punishing someone that is vulnerable and may many reasons why she is how she is.

MT here. As an ex addict myself 20years clean now and also working with addicts the one thing I can testify is that give the opportunity the right support and allowing someone to start seeing their worth they can change.

This is a slow process because of the demonisation of addiction and how they are treated.

There are two sides of the story. You may have seen one side but you may not of seen the years of trauma someone has gone through to get to that stage.

To punish them is just down right wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And also OP what about all the dead beat dads out there that have several children and don't pay a penny towards them or see them

Would you make it law that they would have to have their tubes tied

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

No! House them in Portsmouth

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No. There should be help offered to deal with the underlying issues, and intervention for child protection where needed, but never enforce sterilisation.

If any enforced sterilising should be done it should be on the ‘men’ who prey on vulnerable women in that position then fuck off without consequence (note - I don’t actually think they should be sterilised either!)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rReyMan
over a year ago

Fleet

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

This is a tricky one, it's an issue that needs resolving. People are saying you could raise a law but you could, it would be heavily challenged but you could. Look at the anti abortion laws in the states.

Should we is another question. I dont think we should, but would the rehab options work, in this extreme case I doubt it, rehab needs the person to want to change, and I don't think this person is looking to change. 6/7 kids still going down the same path. Like I said tricky. Someone earlier kind of touched on the better idea, we need to focus on the kids and ensure they get to live their best lives.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At some point if this were made a law, someone has to define what makes a parent unsuitable.

Would this be having a child taken into care? It could be argued that this was too late.

Getting a criminal record?

A jail sentence?

An illegal act?

Jumping a red light?

At some point a magistrate will make an example of somebody and set a legal precedent for compulsory sterilisation after a petty offence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

These hypothetical children have fathers. Too often children are deemed to be the sole responsibility of the mother. If the guys in the situation had insisted on contraception their children wouldn't have been born

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"No (slippery slope), I do however think there should be greater availability of resources to aid women/people like her."

Yes. Prevent, treat, rather than focus on punish.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"These hypothetical children have fathers. Too often children are deemed to be the sole responsibility of the mother. If the guys in the situation had insisted on contraception their children wouldn't have been born "

And so much this.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

The way things are going most of us will have our DNA on a register in the not too distant future. Tracing fathers will become easier, I wonder if that might make some men think twice. Three children you're not involved with and its enforced vasectomy for you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I'd rather go with forced involvement/payment and/or community service.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nabelle21Woman
over a year ago

B38

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

That's a tough one for me. I say no it shouldn't be enforced. It is a sad and disturbing scenario of a persons life.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I think state interference with reproduction is one of the things in the "the Nazis did it, so never again" bucket.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

I'd rather go with forced involvement/payment and/or community service. "

If we're talking about sterilising people, let's include the men.

I would want both parents treated equally. However I don't think we should punish people for having children men or women. I don't think we should blame or make responsible either person more than the other. Currently because she is the one who will actually be pregnant and give birth society puts all the blame on the woman.

Let's make everyone aware that if they have sex it comes with responsibilities to ensure as far as possible you don't have children you can't care for and that you maintain your sexual health.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane "

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The way things are going most of us will have our DNA on a register in the not too distant future. Tracing fathers will become easier, I wonder if that might make some men think twice. Three children you're not involved with and its enforced vasectomy for you."
they get my dna and i shall vanish into the wilds come at me g men me and my man traps be waiting shame we dont have raccoon hats here tho

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I'd rather go with forced involvement/payment and/or community service.

If we're talking about sterilising people, let's include the men.

Let's make everyone aware that if they have sex it comes with responsibilities to ensure as far as possible you don't have children you can't care for and that you maintain your sexual health.

Oh agreed about making it equal. The idea that children are the primary or sole responsibility of mothers/women needs to go the way of, like, asbestos.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Going to put myself out on a limb here and say everyone should have to do a parental/life/intelligence test and if you fail you have to be sterilised. I'd be the first to go and be all the better for it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

I'd rather go with forced involvement/payment and/or community service.

If we're talking about sterilising people, let's include the men.

Let's make everyone aware that if they have sex it comes with responsibilities to ensure as far as possible you don't have children you can't care for and that you maintain your sexual health.

Oh agreed about making it equal. The idea that children are the primary or sole responsibility of mothers/women needs to go the way of, like, asbestos. "

Yep.

Tell our kids that they're responsible for their actions. ALL their actions.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women."

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ? "

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

There is something to be said for forcing men to understand the burden of the indignity and human rights abuses they've forced upon women (and other less powerful groups).

But it wouldn't work, because those doing the forcing would escape consequences. And it's still immoral/ hard line never.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"There is something to be said for forcing men to understand the burden of the indignity and human rights abuses they've forced upon women (and other less powerful groups).

But it wouldn't work, because those doing the forcing would escape consequences. And it's still immoral/ hard line never. "

Yes. People/humans need to be treated the same. So if sterilisation is suggested as a solution to women conceiving children under circumstances that some authority deems unacceptable then it should be suggested for men too.

I've come up with a really good solution though. For every child a guy fathers under the above conditions he must push a 7lb marrow out of his bum over 8 hours.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 19/07/19 10:48:01]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There is something to be said for forcing men to understand the burden of the indignity and human rights abuses they've forced upon women (and other less powerful groups).

But it wouldn't work, because those doing the forcing would escape consequences. And it's still immoral/ hard line never. "
those men oooooo wronguns they are

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

(SARCASM ALERT!!)

Hubby is ironing his black shirt, polishing his jack boots, and practising his goose stepping, as we speak....and muttering something about 'seeing Kyle'....

(END OF SARCASM)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children"

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And they're trying to make abortion illegal in America....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic"

In my opinion it is. If immaculate conception was a real concept I would say that proposing that women who have children knowing they will be taken into care are solely responsible. However that isn't possible so I advocate making both partners responsible for any children that result from them having sex. That is one of my reasons for disagreeing with the op.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No.

She should be given the help she clearly needs though.

As soon as those in power are able to make these decisions for us, where does it end?

People change and there are often valid reasons for people to struggle.

Also, if i can't choose to be sterilised myself, why should someone else be forced to do it?

No. Bad idea, understand the logic but no.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"No.

She should be given the help she clearly needs though.

As soon as those in power are able to make these decisions for us, where does it end?

People change and there are often valid reasons for people to struggle.

Also, if i can't choose to be sterilised myself, why should someone else be forced to do it?

No. Bad idea, understand the logic but no."

Ooh yes. Stick the paternalism up the proverbial arse, without lube, and then give the sterilisation to women who don't want kids ffs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

No, the answer is, consequences should apply to everyone.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off "

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

This has actually happened to someone i know. I'd like to know what support has been given to the pregnant woman. I'd also like to know if social services abused her or how they contributed to her mental state.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

"If the woman should be sterilised then the errant fathers of the children should be sterilised too.

Sterilise all men. They then have to apply for a temporary reversal when the man and a suitable woman can prove they are capable of looking after a child."

Men are more likely to walk away and leave the childrens care to someone else but do not get punished for that, makes more sense to firstly try this out on men.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Such thinking was popular in the first half of the 20th century.

Eugenics - the idea it was impossible to improve populations through selective breeding.

It was also known as scientific racism, since it provided justification to politicians who believed white people were superior to people of brown, black and yellow pigmentation.

Winston Churchill was the vice-president of the British branch.

Our friends in Germany took the concept a step further and actually tried to purify their population through the elimination of ethnicities and other groups that were seen as impurities.

There is still an underground movement who believe in such concepts.

This is what your post reminds me of.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

* possible, not impossible

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As everyone says tricky. I doubt she is getting pregnant because it is something she wants.

All the issues that got her where she is in the first place need resolving first ( in an ideal world ) and give her back her independance of thought and control of her body so she can choose pregnancy or not.

I could see a situation where temporary use of contraception would be useful as people got back on their feet, sort of along the lines of being sectioned, in a done for your own good type of way but the ethics of it all are still rather murky.

The men getting these women pregnant shouldn't go unnacounted for either, Id be more tempted to castrate them to be honest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

"Such thinking was popular in the first half of the 20th century.

Eugenics - the idea it was impossible to improve populations through selective breeding.

It was also known as scientific racism, since it provided justification to politicians who believed white people were superior to people of brown, black and yellow pigmentation.

Winston Churchill was the vice-president of the British branch.

Our friends in Germany took the concept a step further and actually tried to purify their population through the elimination of ethnicities and other groups that were seen as impurities.

There is still an underground movement who believe in such concepts.

This is what your post reminds me of.

Eugenics is why social services were created, to out the sick and 'feeble minded' to stop them from breeding. They weren't created to help families.

Don't think the OP was being facist but yeah these ideas stem from that type of thinking.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem with enforced contraception (other than the ethical issue) is that you have side effects that can be extreme and nasty. Inflicting those on someone non consensually would be a huge issue for a doctor/nurse/pharmacist.

It can be tricky to find the contraception that works for you and the last thing you’d want in that situation is one that causes depression or extreme mood swings in someone already having issues.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uzzy NavelWoman
over a year ago

so near and yet so far....

"On the other side of the coin, like in China(though they have relaxed slightly), perhaps there should be a cap on the amount of children a family can have anyway. This one is based on the decline in health of the big spinning rock we're on due to over population. Nothing seems to destroy the planet quite like a bunch of humans so maybe its time to limit that destruction on a global scale? "

Having lived in China all I saw was the importance placed on boys and now there is an imbalance. Also the 4/2/1 of 4 grandparents 2 parents and 1 little darling makes for wonderful little emperors and empresses...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Eugenics is why social services were created, to out the sick and 'feeble minded' to stop them from breeding. They weren't created to help families.

Don't think the OP was being facist but yeah these ideas stem from that type of thinking."

I apologise if anyone inferred that - it was not my intention.

No, it's the idea of giving away your freedom to the state to decide who can and who cannot breed. It is a very slippery slope, as history shows.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No way should this happen.

I was actually talking to Ash about this the other day in relation to something I had read.

The government has no right to make decisions like this and yes there will always extream cases that might warrant exception but, once you go down this road there is an extremely high risk of it being abused.

People with learning difficulties or mental or physical illness could be deemed "not fit" to have a family.

If a woman finds herself in this situation she is almost certainly very damaged and needs proper help and support.

She properly convinces herself this time she will do it right, this time will be different but the cycle continues.

This would be a very dangerous road to go down.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I actually have a feeling I saw the news a few years ago that a woman with learning difficulties was forced to be sterilised. I cant remember the details but I will try to find it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *r TriomanMan
over a year ago

Chippenham Malmesbury area

Massive retro-grade step for this nation; it'll take us back to the days when it was considered just (by the law) to chemically castrate homosexuals.

Whist your (hypertheticall) mother

Maybe considered (by the authorities) to be a burden on society, like all of us she has rights; these must be upheld as any erosion will send humanity sliding backwards to a society that people have fought hard to change.

The next health epedemic in this country is predicted to be obesity; maybe an enforced stomach stappling op should be imposed for those 10 points over their ideal BMI?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Here is an interesting link.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What’s next.... People should only have kids if they can support them without claiming benefits......

Yes!

Yeah, let's make the children suffer for something that isn't their fault

What by sharing a room? Ok

I was referring to the cutting of benefits

What do you suggest then? As what is in the op is never going to happen. People should just have as many as they like even if they can’t afford to? "

It has happened and iv posted a link.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People who are within 5 yard of a bin and still drop litter should be sterilised

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I worked in family law dealing with such cases for 17 years

I still don't have an answer

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hmmmm this is an issue close to my heart. I was a child who grew up in the care system due to a mother who had/has abolutely zero maternal skills. Before I was born she had 3 other children removed from her custody and who were adopted.

If she were sterilised at that point, I wouldn't have been born.

As much as the care system, nor my childhood is anything I would wish upon anyone else, does my mother's actions mean I'm less entitled to my life?

Perhaps if she had accepted the support many agencies had offered her, my story would have been different.

But for me personally, I use her examples as what a parent shouldn't be, so I can be the best mum to my own children.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Hmmmm this is an issue close to my heart. I was a child who grew up in the care system due to a mother who had/has abolutely zero maternal skills. Before I was born she had 3 other children removed from her custody and who were adopted.

If she were sterilised at that point, I wouldn't have been born.

As much as the care system, nor my childhood is anything I would wish upon anyone else, does my mother's actions mean I'm less entitled to my life?

Perhaps if she had accepted the support many agencies had offered her, my story would have been different.

But for me personally, I use her examples as what a parent shouldn't be, so I can be the best mum to my own children. "

Thank you, this is similar to my story but I wasn't brave enough to say that as some people are very flippant on threads like this.

I don't have or plan on having children but my sister does and she like you has given everything to her children so the cycle is now broken. X

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too."

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario "

Of course men come into it. Yes it's a woman's boby but if she is presurd to be sterilised so should the men who father umpteen children.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rReyMan
over a year ago

Fleet

Hats off to Rubi, this has provided a good thought provoking thread. A great social and moral dilemma.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Of course men come into it. Yes it's a woman's boby but if she is presurd to be sterilised so should the men who father umpteen children. "

I agree, well disagree none should be sterilised, but the OP never mentioned men was simply about the woman’s situation

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By * and M lookingCouple
over a year ago

Worcester

Should have been done after the first time.

Why should society keep paying for others mistakes?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should have been done after the first time.

Why should society keep paying for others mistakes?"

Have you never heard of second chances. This should never happen.

Society should be judged on how we care for the most disadvantaged in our society!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario "

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

If she were sterilised at that point, I wouldn't have been born.

As much as the care system, nor my childhood is anything I would wish upon anyone else, does my mother's actions mean I'm less entitled to my life?

Perhaps if she had accepted the support many agencies had offered her, my story would have been different.

But for me personally, I use her examples as what a parent shouldn't be, so I can be the best mum to my own children. "

Thanks for sharing that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also"

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

If she were sterilised at that point, I wouldn't have been born.

As much as the care system, nor my childhood is anything I would wish upon anyone else, does my mother's actions mean I'm less entitled to my life?

Perhaps if she had accepted the support many agencies had offered her, my story would have been different.

But for me personally, I use her examples as what a parent shouldn't be, so I can be the best mum to my own children.

Thank you, this is similar to my story but I wasn't brave enough to say that as some people are very flippant on threads like this.

I don't have or plan on having children but my sister does and she like you has given everything to her children so the cycle is now broken. X"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong "

How do you make a baby?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

interesting that this be raised as a discussion point att the same time as the far right is becoming ever more active and vocal.

Not that I’m saying the OP is far right but lots of things that should’ve been left in the past have been reading their ugly heads again over the last couple of years.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong "

Ok.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?"

It already is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is. "

Could compulsory sterilisation ever be a part of the solution?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is.

Could compulsory sterilisation ever be a part of the solution? "

Who decides which people are sterilised?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

Eugenics is why social services were created, to out the sick and 'feeble minded' to stop them from breeding. They weren't created to help families.

Don't think the OP was being facist but yeah these ideas stem from that type of thinking.

I apologise if anyone inferred that - it was not my intention.

No, it's the idea of giving away your freedom to the state to decide who can and who cannot breed. It is a very slippery slope, as history shows.

I didn't think you were, was more hoping my reply didn't hint at that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is.

Could compulsory sterilisation ever be a part of the solution?

Who decides which people are sterilised?"

Answering a question with another question is never helpful in a debate, but I would imagine decisions would be made in the same way crimes are judged, if having excess offspring ever actually became a crime. There may be times in the future when people view the past and say "I wish we hadn't done that". There may also be times when they say "I wish we had done that". It may already be too late.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?"

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The explosion in population is an issue on a planet whose resources are finite.

It took us 100,000 years to reach 1 billion as a species (circa 1800).

It has taken us another 200 years to reach 8 billion.

War or disease is the usually form of cull.

Deciding who can and cannot pro-create re-opens the whole eugenics thing and takes us back to a era no rational person wants to revisit.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

Yes , at least the contraceptive part anyway .

She is clearly unfit to be a mother, and there’s every chance the children she bears are fucked up due to the drug abuse and alcohol consumption . So it’s not just her we are talking about is it?

Totally unfair to bring children into the world that have no chance to prosper. I’ve seen way too many kids with illness brought on by bad parenting, so this is a no brainier in my opinion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor "

OK maybe you should accept people have brought up other relevant things that weren't specifically asked. But that's what happens in discussions. It's revalnt and if you you don't like it then maybe move on. This is a great debate so let's not ruin it by being petty.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is.

Could compulsory sterilisation ever be a part of the solution?

Who decides which people are sterilised?

It’s not a debate though, it’s a discussion, and I was merely asking a question to gain more information.

Which I did, as you seem to have moved from using forced sterilisation as a means to population control to being the punishment for a policy designed to limit population. The two are not the same.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Quite. The question of a women even getting pregnant in the first place is totally reliant on a man being there so the whole concept of where does the man fit in is entirely relevant to the problem being discussed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially when people are seeing sterilisation as an option.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is.

Could compulsory sterilisation ever be a part of the solution?

Who decides which people are sterilised?

It’s not a debate though, it’s a discussion, and I was merely asking a question to gain more information.

Which I did, as you seem to have moved from using forced sterilisation as a means to population control to being the punishment for a policy designed to limit population. The two are not the same."

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

These kind of discussions are never worth discussing. Every case is different and individually complex. Because it is hypothetical there will inevitably be too many “but what if”’ questions. In real life you’re presented with the full facts then you make your decision. Here this is but a few paragraphs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Does anybody think that overpopulation is, or ever will be, a serious concern considering the Earth's finite resources?

It already is.

Could compulsory sterilisation ever be a part of the solution?

Who decides which people are sterilised?

It’s not a debate though, it’s a discussion, and I was merely asking a question to gain more information.

Which I did, as you seem to have moved from using forced sterilisation as a means to population control to being the punishment for a policy designed to limit population. The two are not the same.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense."

Then you need to work on your comprehension skills.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"These kind of discussions are never worth discussing. Every case is different and individually complex. Because it is hypothetical there will inevitably be too many “but what if”’ questions. In real life you’re presented with the full facts then you make your decision. Here this is but a few paragraphs. "

It's always needed to discuss these things. And it's not hypothetical, this has happened.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No. I find it abhorrent that someone would even suggest it.

She's most likely a victim of the system that you all support in your votes, or your apathy. A heartless, economy driven society that values singing, football and excess.. over kindness, charity and love.

Why not give people like the help they so desperately need, rather than forcing them to bend the knee

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's always needed to discuss these things. And it's not hypothetical, this has happened.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html"

Ahh I see. Even still, it now becomes a debate without us having the actual data, background history, etc etc.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's always needed to discuss these things. And it's not hypothetical, this has happened.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html

Ahh I see. Even still, it now becomes a debate without us having the actual data, background history, etc etc."

But that's the point, it shouldn't happen full stop.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No. I find it abhorrent that someone would even suggest it.

Why not give people like the help they so desperately need, rather than forcing them to bend the knee

Iv never agreed with anything more.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's always needed to discuss these things. And it's not hypothetical, this has happened.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-six-who-has-learning-difficulties-can-be-put-through-forced-sterilisation-rules-judge-10023496.html

Ahh I see. Even still, it now becomes a debate without us having the actual data, background history, etc etc.

But that's the point, it shouldn't happen full stop. "

In my personal opinion I agree with you. In my professional opinion I don’t know enough. It is complex and sad.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

It was yes between me and the other lady, also if they weren’t asked there not relevant sorry

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"No. I find it abhorrent that someone would even suggest it.

Why not give people like the help they so desperately need, rather than forcing them to bend the knee

Iv never agreed with anything more. "

Humanity is alive and kicking

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *innie The MinxWoman
over a year ago

Under the Duvet

No.

People can, and do change their lives around.

No one want or enjoys their life being a total car crash.

My view would be to offer her support with her demons (and maybe injectable contraception).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, but she would need help.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!"

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

I don’t think it should become a law but the physical and mental health of the woman should be taken in to consideration. Multiple pregnancies bring their own health issues. The question we should be asking is why does she feel the need to be pregnant or is it the only way she can get assistance.

The woman may have mental health issues and needs more support than she is being given. It’s never anyone’s responsibility when it comes to budgets and patients get passed from one person to another and the system fails them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today "

Oh boo hoo. I fail to believe anyones thinking can be that blinkered to not realise this is more than just the womans problem.

I dont have to hate men to realise it takes more than just a women to make a baby and that everyone in the situation needs help to prevent it happening. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today

Oh boo hoo. I fail to believe anyones thinking can be that blinkered to not realise this is more than just the womans problem.

I dont have to hate men to realise it takes more than just a women to make a baby and that everyone in the situation needs help to prevent it happening. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

Yeah what about the parents, therapist, drug dealers, off licence owner, doctor and friends maybe even pets,, they can all be men if you like.

O no the OP wanted to know about the woman specifically, but sod that let’s just cut off all the men dicks regardless lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today

Oh boo hoo. I fail to believe anyones thinking can be that blinkered to not realise this is more than just the womans problem.

I dont have to hate men to realise it takes more than just a women to make a baby and that everyone in the situation needs help to prevent it happening. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

Yeah what about the parents, therapist, drug dealers, off licence owner, doctor and friends maybe even pets,, they can all be men if you like.

O no the OP wanted to know about the woman specifically, but sod that let’s just cut off all the men dicks regardless lol "

I have nothing left for you but

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today "

you think that expecting men to be involved with any children they father is man hating feminism ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *htcMan
over a year ago

Yes after two. No matter who it is. World is over populated. Max 2 per female.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As everyone says tricky. I doubt she is getting pregnant because it is something she wants.

The men getting these women pregnant shouldn't go unnacounted for either, Id be more tempted to castrate them to be honest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

"O no the OP wanted to know about the woman specifically, but sod that let’s just cut off all the men dicks regardless lol "

This is black and white thinking. It may be possible that you genuinely don't get others are thinking in shades of grey also.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes after two. No matter who it is. World is over populated. Max 2 per female. "

Sterilise the men.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No, I think she should get the help she needs for the underlying issues that cause her to behave this way. "

This. Could not have put it better.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

so for a mother say like shannon mathews mother or baby p s mother you dont think it would be a good idea if they were stopped from having any more kids? some people do not deserve to be able to reproduce

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"so for a mother say like shannon mathews mother or baby p s mother you dont think it would be a good idea if they were stopped from having any more kids? some people do not deserve to be able to reproduce"

The state does not deserve that power.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

oh thats ok then phew thank god she can have another kid for her partner to torture to death while she does nothin to stop it.spose one way pf stoping her havin anymore is for her to swing from the end of a rope.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *SAchickWoman
over a year ago

Hillside desolate

"oh thats ok then phew thank god she can have another kid for her partner to torture to death while she does nothin to stop it.spose one way pf stoping her havin anymore is for her to swing from the end of a rope."

I imagine if either of those women were to have another child they'd be taken into care

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *retty GoodMan
over a year ago

Cardiff Bay

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today

you think that expecting men to be involved with any children they father is man hating feminism ?"

No I just think it’s massively off topic

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

I imagine if either of those women were to have another child they'd be taken into care"

i imagine they would but wouldnt it be better that creatures like that were stopped from having any? and yea the sick fucker he beat the child to death should be castrated also.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As everyone says tricky. I doubt she is getting pregnant because it is something she wants.

The men getting these women pregnant shouldn't go unnacounted for either, Id be more tempted to castrate them to be honest.

So the woman gets sympathy and support....

And the man gets gelded

Btw The answer to OP's question in No.

Compulsory sterilisation does nothing to address the difficulties in the woman's life. A more supportive approach, hopefully treatment based, physical emotional addiction and mental health issues being addressed would be far better for her and society as a whole.

After all if the state ever proceeded down that path (and it has in limited cases in the past) at what point do we cease to have any free will over how we may live. And what state body could ever be trusted not to abuse such powers on the grounds of cost, convenience, or indeed the state determining what our lives should be. It sounds scarily like 1984 come to life.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

It would cost hundreds of thousands to help her, and the chances are she would throw it back in the faces of social services. And where does it end? We help her and there are tens or hundreds of thousands more just like her asking why we aren’t giving them the same.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

I know I’m in a very distinct minority on here, because I say exactly what I think. And my thinking is far from politically correct in this namby pamby society we now have. But if one of the posters who thinks we should be helping her could outline how we could afford to do so, and have anything like a guarantee that we wouldn’t be wasting the money on a lost cause , I’d like to hear it. Furthermore, should we be doing the same for every alcoholic drug addict out there? Why not add the gambling addicts, the sex addicts and everyone who has a self induced problem? After all we have an endless supply of free money don’t we?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Minority or not I have to agree with this

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Yeah forget human rights

You can’t enforce a medical procedure on anyone male or female, that’s just not humane

I agree. However if we're talking about enforcement of a procedure let's include the guys. They are after all as responsible for conception as women.

Ok fair but seeming as we know that the post was immoral and against human rights, why bring men into it ?

Because in most cases men are involved in the conception of children

Of course but was not about that concerning the tread topic

Ok the end part of the topic with the question was

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections

And the answer is chop this imaginary mans dic off

The man isn't imaginary.

I think you've misunderstood me or I haven't explained myself very well.

I think men should bear equal responsibility for any children there father and be given equal access.

The question was do you think there should be a law that forces women to be sterilised if they have six children they can't look after. My answer is no, not unless we apply this law to men too.

Of course the answer is no as it’s womans body woman’s choice just don’t know where or why man came into it for no reason as OP specifically asked about the woman in the scenario

Because the woman did not get pregnant by herself and therefore shouldn't have to bear sole responsibility for the consequences of her pregnancy.

Ok sorry my mistake I thought the scenario given only asked about the woman, I must of mist where it asked about the man also

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Really, as I just looked again at the post and it only asked about the woman in the scenario ? That’s not agree or disagree it right or wrong

How do you make a baby?

Was that asked ?? ,, but ok spurm found on the floor

Especially in the case of an obviously vulnerable woman.

Her potentially needing protected and the men involved are an obviously natural route for the debate to take.

If the thread simply answered “should she be sterilised” with a list of yes and no it’d be a pretty boring thread!

A lot of man hating going on, or the feminists have been let out today

you think that expecting men to be involved with any children they father is man hating feminism ?

No I just think it’s massively off topic "

Yes, I know you do.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Minority or not I have to agree with this

You’ll be the only one, and won’t win any favours Nora!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Minority or not I have to agree with this

You’ll be the only one, and won’t win any favours Nora!"

Oh I know

. I often am. Never mind eh

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

There are a lot of comments about the lady in question but not much being said about the children. A life in care? It’s not always a good story. I’ve been with social services and police when they remove children. No matter what their parents do they still love them and they’re torn away. It’s devastating yet it can happen repeatedly?

More thought and care for the children is what is needed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

We get the society we create. And just maybe if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion why should we treat or support the homeless, mental health issues, those who walk in front of a car whilst too busy texting etc etc.

Sorry but your post is arrant nonsense and totally lacking in any compassion or humanity whatsoever.

We either have a duty to the vulnerable weak and dispossessed....or its every man and woman for themselves....

Where is the

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There are a lot of comments about the lady in question but not much being said about the children. A life in care? It’s not always a good story. I’ve been with social services and police when they remove children. No matter what their parents do they still love them and they’re torn away. It’s devastating yet it can happen repeatedly?

More thought and care for the children is what is needed. "

Isn't that the thought behind sterilising the person? To prevent another child having to go through that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman
over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

We have an endless supply of money for the royal family, politicians pay rises, £39 breakfasts for one MP, duck ponds, tax cuts for the rich (yeah fk off elsewhere then you sponging cunts), even my local council did up a carpark twice since the tories got in and now a cinema is being over the top of that...but hey social services have been cut so no problem and they can afford to waste our taxes.

We have money for all sorts of shit that is deemed important because it makes more money, except *we're in more debt than ever so nothing makes fking sense really.

*When i say we i mean the government is in debt, we are just paying it off for them so they can do what they want without having to pay for it themselves.

Poverty excels poverty, being poor makes the poor poorer. And that's exactly what the austerity cuts did, they took money from things that would be spent in this country and gave it to those who could invest outside of our country at the expense of all of us.

Don't tell me we have no money when we most definitely have. It just went to selfish knobheads.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Minority or not I have to agree with this

You’ll be the only one, and won’t win any favours Nora!

Oh I know

. I often am. Never mind eh "

I dont know how much choice a drug addicted alcoholic woman has when her partner desires sex, and how easy it would be to say hey lets use a condom eh. I really truly dont believe any woman would chose the shitstorm of having drug addicted damaged babies all then taken away from them and that resultant pyschological mess for any sort of monetary gain.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

A baby girl is born. For whatever reason: trauma, crap parents, awful schooling, something wired wrong, this innocent child ends up, as an adult, in a horrible situation she can't escape from. (or find the will to escape from, because it's not easy).

She was made that way somehow. It's not all on her (even if it is in part). And I believe as a society we should work to help those who are weak and have been wronged, and improve those who could be better. Not close the door to their recovery, lock them up, consign them to the proverbial dustbin (none of these things are free either BTW).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

By the way, I've been consigned to that dustbin many times myself.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

More thought and care for the children is what is needed.

Isn't that the thought behind sterilising the person? To prevent another child having to go through that.

Yes it is but my comment is more about here on the thread. There seems to be little regard for the children.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eastAndTheHarlotCouple
over a year ago

Hartlepool

You know this is against the human rights act right?

Don't start messing with human rights or you open the door to a whole shit show!

Sterilisation for an unfit parent.

Disabled could be unfit too.

Poor people could be unfit parents.

People who don't have a 'normal' parenting style? Yeah sod it sterilise them all!

Pretty sure that didn't go well for Hitler though.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

More thought and care for the children is what is needed.

Isn't that the thought behind sterilising the person? To prevent another child having to go through that.

Yes it is but my comment is more about here on the thread. There seems to be little regard for the children. "

You're right, I thought that earlier.

It's a tricky problem. I don't know the answer.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You know this is against the human rights act right?

Don't start messing with human rights or you open the door to a whole shit show!

Sterilisation for an unfit parent.

Disabled could be unfit too.

Poor people could be unfit parents.

People who don't have a 'normal' parenting style? Yeah sod it sterilise them all!

Forces Sterilisation still takes place all over the world,including the UK manly with people with learning difficulties.

And the USA were doing forced sterilisation long before that sick twisted f**k Hitler.

Pretty sure that didn't go well for Hitler though. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

More thought and care for the children is what is needed.

Isn't that the thought behind sterilising the person? To prevent another child having to go through that.

Yes it is but my comment is more about here on the thread. There seems to be little regard for the children.

You're right, I thought that earlier.

It's a tricky problem. I don't know the answer."

Me neither. There are just so many sad stories and situations.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

More thought and care for the children is what is needed.

Isn't that the thought behind sterilising the person? To prevent another child having to go through that.

Yes it is but my comment is more about here on the thread. There seems to be little regard for the children.

You're right, I thought that earlier.

It's a tricky problem. I don't know the answer.

Me neither. There are just so many sad stories and situations. "

Yep. Life can be shit for many people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Sorry but your post is arrant nonsense and totally lacking in any compassion or humanity whatsoever.

We either have a duty to the vulnerable weak and dispossessed....or its every man and woman for themselves....

Where is the

You didn’t actually answer any of my points.

You simply tried to paint me as a nasty person who shows no compassion or humanity at all.

A rather pointless post and very typical of the forum generally these days. Say the right thing, all very correct by the definition of the current trend, and feel better about oneself for doing so.

So how about telling me how we would go about helping her, and how we can afford it? And how we can afford it for everyone else who makes a mess of their life? And how those who work bloody hard all their life for the minimum wage, but still manage to raise a family, often going without themselves will feel when they see scum like her getting sympathy and help. Six kids in care, another on the way, and she’s knocking back the booze and taking drugs yet we should be feeling sorry for her?

Where’s the love you say ?

Certainly not being wasted on her

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Sorry but your post is arrant nonsense and totally lacking in any compassion or humanity whatsoever.

We either have a duty to the vulnerable weak and dispossessed....or its every man and woman for themselves....

Where is the

You didn’t actually answer any of my points.

You simply tried to paint me as a nasty person who shows no compassion or humanity at all.

A rather pointless post and very typical of the forum generally these days. Say the right thing, all very correct by the definition of the current trend, and feel better about oneself for doing so.

Where’s the love you say ?

Certainly not being wasted on her

If you want the cold hard economic answer, then it's relatively simple.

It's far more cost effective to treat the woman's problems provide support to help her overcome her difficulties than it is to put children into "care" where they are often abused and the cycle repeats.

And yes it costs money, and time, and is a slow process, but that way it saves other lives from being damaged too.

And it doesn't always work, but then what in this world does. Any if we always look to the negatives first as a society, then the "simple" answers just compound the problems, not just for this woman, but for the future of other lives as well as hers.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *crumdiddlyumptiousMan
over a year ago

Compulsory sterilisation no, Maybe a temporary reversible option in cases like this

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ibblingnewtWoman
over a year ago

by the sea

Id like to say yes but not fully comfortable thinking it could be mental health or addiction

Those make people unable to make the right choices is some cases but it’s unethical to sterilise people with problems, more is needed to help the woman

but I hope that the kids taken away at an early age will be adopted and a better life

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Sorry but your post is arrant nonsense and totally lacking in any compassion or humanity whatsoever.

We either have a duty to the vulnerable weak and dispossessed....or its every man and woman for themselves....

Where is the

You didn’t actually answer any of my points.

You simply tried to paint me as a nasty person who shows no compassion or humanity at all.

A rather pointless post and very typical of the forum generally these days. Say the right thing, all very correct by the definition of the current trend, and feel better about oneself for doing so.

Where’s the love you say ?

Certainly not being wasted on her

If you want the cold hard economic answer, then it's relatively simple.

And yes it costs money, and time, and is a slow process, but that way it saves other lives from being damaged too.

The original question was should she be forced to take some form of contraception or be sterilised. I answered as I saw fit, I do think it’s a no brainer that this woman should be stopped from creating more lives that have no hope of anything other than an awful life. Look at the kids that are born when their Mother is an alcoholic and a drug addict. Then tell me I’m wrong.

So by saying that it is cheaper to help her than it is to put her kids through the care system is a bit like bolting the gate after the horse has escaped. She’s already done it seven times! If intervention happened after the first we would have saved a fortune! Which could then have been spent on people who deserve help. Why should the kids suffer? They didn’t ask to be born and have a Mother like that? If we are a compassionate and caring society we should be protecting them, and that duty of care should extend to prevention as well as the inevitable treatment if we don’t stop it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

Would it not be easier to bang her up in Jail and have her cracken spawn taken into care?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uttyjonnMan
over a year ago

SEA

It's nothing to do with helping individuals, it's about our community, I am happy paying into the social system that gave me a chance in life

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Sorry but your post is arrant nonsense and totally lacking in any compassion or humanity whatsoever.

We either have a duty to the vulnerable weak and dispossessed....or its every man and woman for themselves....

Where is the

You didn’t actually answer any of my points.

You simply tried to paint me as a nasty person who shows no compassion or humanity at all.

A rather pointless post and very typical of the forum generally these days. Say the right thing, all very correct by the definition of the current trend, and feel better about oneself for doing so.

Where’s the love you say ?

Certainly not being wasted on her

If you want the cold hard economic answer, then it's relatively simple.

And yes it costs money, and time, and is a slow process, but that way it saves other lives from being damaged too.

Your wrong! Well you asked. S

Society is more than just paying the bill's. This woman you castigated and suggest she was neutered after her first child. Do you have a crystal ball? Is everyone only allowed one chance to fuck up their life, and then be "owned" by a state, who of course will never make the wrong decision?

That sort of authoritarian state is not where I, and I suspect many others, would ever want to live.

The woman you condemn to losing her most basic human rights, how did she end up in that position. I'm sure it's not where she wanted her life to be, who would?

If we fail the weak, those with "issues" the dispossessed, then who's next? The unemployment, those injured through no fault of there own, after all who chooses to be ill infirm in pain, those who dont fit what we perceive as "normal", swingers perhaps, those who are disruptive or object to the elites...

I think you can see where this is going.

If we stumble eventually who will be there to pick us up when we fall.

Where is the

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

We manage to find money for wars don’t we?

Let’s use that money, or perhaps tax the mega corporations like Amazon and Google. As a country we can afford to do anything we want but we choose not to.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

Sorry but your post is arrant nonsense and totally lacking in any compassion or humanity whatsoever.

We either have a duty to the vulnerable weak and dispossessed....or its every man and woman for themselves....

Where is the

You didn’t actually answer any of my points.

You simply tried to paint me as a nasty person who shows no compassion or humanity at all.

A rather pointless post and very typical of the forum generally these days. Say the right thing, all very correct by the definition of the current trend, and feel better about oneself for doing so.

Where’s the love you say ?

Certainly not being wasted on her

If you want the cold hard economic answer, then it's relatively simple.

And yes it costs money, and time, and is a slow process, but that way it saves other lives from being damaged too.

Your wrong! Well you asked. S

That sort of authoritarian state is not where I, and I suspect many others, would ever want to live.

The woman you condemn to losing her most basic human rights, how did she end up in that position. I'm sure it's not where she wanted her life to be, who would?

I think you can see where this is going.

If we stumble eventually who will be there to pick us up when we fall.

Where is the

I’m not wrong when it comes to the health of a baby born to an alcoholic and drug addicted mother, so your response in suggesting I am is wrong in this instance.

I’ve already said the love certainly isn’t there for this woman, and I’m not in the slightest bit bothered if that makes me lacking in compassion or humanity. She is a disgrace and lost any right to have sympathy when she brought the first child into the world. The fact that she has done it seven times just shows why my belief that she should have been put under statutory contraception until she could prove she was capable of offering the care a mother should give a child makes sense.

Of course I don’t want to never give anyone a second chance, but seven chances? That is just plain silly to suggest that she be given more leeway.

Someone said earlier in the thread that it’s the children, and I’ll repeat my earlier thoughts on the poor little babies born to a drug addicted alcoholic. Babies who will never (hopefully anyway) know their mother, who won’t be breastfed, who may be born with an addiction, who’s liver will no doubt be under par and who come into the world because no one said enough is enough.

Where is the love for them then ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

We manage to find money for wars don’t we?

Let’s use that money, or perhaps tax the mega corporations like Amazon and Google. As a country we can afford to do anything we want but we choose not to."

It’s a totally different subject the whole war thing, and I’m a pacifist at heart so I can see some logic in what you say. But with all the terrorist activity and potential problems with the Middle East I think we would be too open and vulnerable with no armed forces.

Amazon and Google would simply not have anything to do with the UK if we taxed them heavily, but I do agree that they and other massive corporations should pay a fair rate of tax. So should Starbucks, Facebook, Etc..... but even if they did we are almost 2 trillion in debt as a nation. One day, not perhaps in our lifetime, but one day the debt will be called in, or we will suffer another crash like the one in 2008. Then we are fucked, proper fucked because we won’t be able to pay it back or suffer the loss again. Especially if we just throw money at every case like this one!

To think we can have and do what we like if we want to,is exactly why we are in the position we are in now. It’s a mentality that needs to change, but I can’t see any sign of that happening anytime soon. Your post proves my point perfectly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

One solution could be that any woman who was parent to more than a certain number of children who were taken in to care permanently is required as a condition of receiving her benefits to have a contraceptive implant, injection or coil. Any man fulfilling the same conditions is required to attend classes on parental responsibility as a condition of receiving benefits. If the people concerned are working I'm not sure how you'd enforce it.

I've recently seen people referred to twice in the forum as either deserving or not deserving help. That makes me afraid for the future.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iss pleasuringWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere near

"No, I think she should get the help she needs for the underlying issues that cause her to behave this way. "

This.. End off

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iss pleasuringWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere near

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

We manage to find money for wars don’t we?

Let’s use that money, or perhaps tax the mega corporations like Amazon and Google. As a country we can afford to do anything we want but we choose not to."

As we are ment to be the 5"th most richest or is it 8th

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"So we have an almost unanimous forum that says no. And the majority saying we should help her with her problems.

It’s any wonder we have so much debt as a country and a nhs that is sinking.

Every alcoholic, every drug addict, will look at what’s been done to help her and think ,”well I’ll have some of that” and start breeding like rabbits.

We manage to find money for wars don’t we?

Let’s use that money, or perhaps tax the mega corporations like Amazon and Google. As a country we can afford to do anything we want but we choose not to.

As we are ment to be the 5"th most richest or is it 8th"

We're certainly one of the richest nation's in the world.

In terms of personal wealth the majority of it is held by a tiny minority.

That's the way people want it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

She's currently pregnant again, social services have already decided the baby will be taken into care when it is born.

Do you think in circumstances like these there should be a law where she could be forced to be sterilised? Or at the least attend for regular contraceptive implants/injections? "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately