Aged 12 And Looking After the Family - Page 5

Mancie · 08-02-2007, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

You can't stop them!

At last.. they cannot be stopped.. unless you forceibly seperate them or operate and make one of them sterile..the posters that stated they should be stopped have not backed up their statements so I'll give them the two options

Tinkerbelle · 08-02-2007, 00:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

At last.. they cannot be stopped.. unless you forceably seperate them or operate and make one of them sterile..

Down syndromes can be forcibly stopped Mancie. I'd have to swot up because I can't remember the legalities of it.

Mancie · 08-02-2007, 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

Down syndromes can be forcibly stopped Mancie. I'd have to swot up because I can't remember the legalities of it.

Is that in law.. who thought that one up.. Dr mengele..or Hitler himself?

Tinkerbelle · 08-02-2007, 01:07

Oh come on Mancie it's not draconian measures. I'm going to put what I think I remember. No. 1 Downs is an hereditary condition so why should any child be born knowing it's going to have that condition. No. 2 Although they can be part of a married couple, yes by law, I think they can be forced to be sterilised or terminate a pregnancy.

Mancie · 08-02-2007, 01:24

You are joking.. humans can have surgery by force.. when did this become within the law..? the only law I know of is when a person is sentanced to death.
"it's not draconian measures".. no.. just ones of those things.. get over it

How can it be legal to sterolise a person? what sort criteria allows this?... beware the blue eyed blond ayran race bods are about!

WillowTheWhisp · 08-02-2007, 08:52

You keep going on about the rights of people to have babies Mancie, but what about the rights of the children? We are talking about helpless babies here, not some inanimate commodity. It's nothing to do with Nazism it's to do with protecting children from a life of Hell. Are you seriously saying that the rights of everyone to have children should take precedence no matter how they treat or mistreat them?

If people had babies and forced them all into child prostitution/pornography/violence would you still insist they should be allowed to have more and more?

I thought we'd abolished slavery in this country.

panther · 08-02-2007, 13:48

somebody is talking out of there bottom!!

and its not willow!

junetta · 11-02-2007, 00:06

I think you are right Tinks. Downs Syndrome people are sterilized if they marry.

I haven't seen the programme but after reading this thread I decided to download it to watch tomorrow. Your comments are pretty sound, Willow, no family should exist in this way, or increase it, disabled or no.

Further comments later.

Mancie · 11-02-2007, 08:35

I can find nothing that says forced sterolization is legal under UK law.

Willow asked "Are you seriously saying that the rights of everyone to have children should take precedence no matter how they treat or mistreat them?

If people had babies and forced them all into child prostitution/pornography/violence would you still insist they should be allowed to have more and more?". Thankyou for making your views plain.

No I am not!... but this couple (undesirible thay may be) don't beat or sexually abuse the children nor do they force them into criminal activities.

The childrens rights must come first and we have laws to remove children that are being abused as may be the case in this family.

I think the idea of forced sterolization is abhorrent..I can see an argument for it in cases of the criminally insane.
If you feel strongly about the forced sterolization of certian individuals why not start a petition?.... looks like you would find quite a few Accy Webbers to add thier signatures!

WillowTheWhisp · 11-02-2007, 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

No I am not!... but this couple (undesirible thay may be) don't beat or sexually abuse the children nor do they force them into criminal activities.

There is more to child abuse than beating them black and blue. You can't see the outward signs of mental and emotional cruelty but they are just as damaging.

An eight year old tried to commit suicide. Please think about that before deciding her parents rights are more important than hers.

Gayle · 11-02-2007, 11:07

There is one point though - again playing devil's advocate a little - at what point do you decide?

If a blind couple or disabled couple announce they want to have children do you refuse them that right on the basis that they may not be able to cope? Or, do you allow them to have children and then take them away?

I'm not arguing for either, just want to know what you would do? We have the great advantage of hindsight in this instance and seem to agree that these parents should not have children but where is the line between their human rights and the rights of the children (unborn or otherwise) and at what point should it have been drawn? Also, would we draw the same line at the same point for another couple?

The problem that I'm getting at is that the social services have to make the decision about that line day in day out. Again in hindsight they've clearly got it wrong but by responding to the outcry from this case they may draw the line earlier next time and be equally as wrong depriving a loving (blind or disabled) couple the right to children.

Tinkerbelle · 11-02-2007, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by junetta

I think you are right Tinks. Downs Syndrome people are sterilized if they marry.

I think it used to be the case June but I think the laws have changed now. I do know bits, my grandma was a Sister at Brockhall and then Calderstones after Brockhall was closed. I remember she said the downs syndromes ladies all had to be on the pill as sexuality activity was rife. I think it's handled a little more delicately now than before regarding married downs syndromes, I think it's discussed with them regarding sterilisation or contraceptive pill but under no circumstances is pregnancy is an option.

Of course they should be allowed to at least try Gayle but the social services should step in were any family are having difficulties. OK, so the selfish parents aren't having difficulty but the poor kiddies that are trying to raise their parents offspring sure as hell are, or one of them wouldn't have tried to take her own life at the age of 8.

I don't think the woman should be sterilised though, no-one should be forced to endure a medical precedure they don't want ... but she shouldn't be allowed to have any more kids, they should be taken from her at birth so as not to burden those little ones even one.

Mancie · 11-02-2007, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

I don't think the woman should be sterilised though, no-one should be forced to endure a medical precedure they don't want ... but she shouldn't be allowed to have any more kids, they should be taken from her at birth so as not to burden those little ones even one.

Well said !...there is a big difference in not being allowed to keep more kids and "not be allowed to produce more"

Gayle · 11-02-2007, 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

I think it used to be the case June but I think the laws have changed now. I do know bits, my grandma was a Sister at Brockhall and then Calderstones after Brockhall was closed. I remember she said the downs syndromes ladies all had to be on the pill as sexuality activity was rife. I think it's handled a little more delicately now than before regarding married downs syndromes, I think it's discussed with them regarding sterilisation or contraceptive pill but under no circumstances is pregnancy is an option.

Of course they should be allowed to at least try Gayle but the social services should step in were any family are having difficulties. OK, so the selfish parents aren't having difficulty but the poor kiddies that are trying to raise their parents offspring sure as hell are, or one of them wouldn't have tried to take her own life at the age of 8.

I don't think the woman should be sterilised though, no-one should be forced to endure a medical precedure they don't want ... but she shouldn't be allowed to have any more kids, they should be taken from her at birth so as not to burden those little ones even one.

How do social services get to know though? This case has been highlighted by a TV programme but in reality how do social services know when to intervene or put another way when are they allowed to intervene? If someone from social services knocked on my door would they be allowed to enter? What rights (and I'm sure they must have them) have social services got to go into a family home in the first place?

Isn't being allowed to have children worse though - going through 9months of pregnancy only to have your child whipped away from you?

Tinkerbelle · 11-02-2007, 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

How do social services get to know though? This case has been highlighted by a TV programme but in reality how do social services know when to intervene or put another way when are they allowed to intervene? If someone from social services knocked on my door would they be allowed to enter? What rights (and I'm sure they must have them) have social services got to go into a family home in the first place?

Who's the people that see our children as much as the parents do? School of course. It's not just signs of physical or sexual abuse they should be watching for but the emotional abuse they kids are having to endure too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Isn't being allowed to have children worse though - going through 9months of pregnancy only to have your child whipped away from you?

That's her problem. As I said before take them from her she'll soon get fed up.

It's not fair, simple as that, she she shouldn't be able to keep having kids that her children are having to raise.