Should UK 'Baby Machine' be Sterilised after 13 taken into care?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Miss Winter, who lives in a one-bedroom flat in Luton, Bedfordshire, had her first child with ex-husband Wayne Redding at 19.

Their daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was taken away in 1994 aged two after the couple were accused of neglect.

Two years later their next child was also taken away. Miss Winter then began an affair with Mr Housden, who had been a lodger in their home.

She divorced Mr Redding, a New Zealander who has since died, and went on to have another 11 children with Mr Housden, all of whom have been taken into care.

Four of them were found to have a rare and degenerative condition, which has a genetic link, after birth. One of those has since died

The couple have been told they cannot keep the children due to 'concerns about severe neglect, lack of parenting ability and the consequent risk to any child in their care'.

Miss Winters, who left school with no qualifications and worked as a factory packer until giving birth to her first child, receives £271 a month disability allowance. An accident left it difficult for her to walk.

Mr Housden, 36, is her registered carer and they receive £511.33 a month in income support, plus £300 a month for housing benefit and council tax on their one-bedroom flat.

TIMELINE TO THERESA WINTERS' CHILDREN

August 1992 - Girl
January 1994 - Boy
January 1995 - Boy
September 1996 - Boy
September 1997 - Boy
May 1999 - Girl
June 2000 - Girl
June 2001 - Boy
September 2002 - Girl
November 2003 - Boy
January 2006 - Girl
March 2007 - Girl
March 2008

All the above children have been taken into care, i.e. foster-homes.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Theresa Winters whose 13 children are in care vows to keep getting pregnant

A PREGNANT woman who has already had 13 children taken into care has vowed to keep on giving birth until she is allowed to keep one.

Theresa Winters has spent almost half of her life having babies, but has not been allowed to keep any of them beyond the age of two.

Even her own sister believes that she should be sterilized.

But Miss Winters, 36, a heavy smoker who was herself taken into care as a teenager, insisted it was time for a "second chance".

She accused social workers of failing to help her achieve her deepest wish of having a family with her second partner, Tony Housden.

She admitted that community workers had probably made the right decision in removing her first 13 children because of neglect, but said she had "calmed down" now.

www.dailytelegraph.com.au...

Louise Walls, 37, accused her sister of having more children out of 'pure spite'.

The mother-of-three told the Daily Mirror: 'She should be sterilised. She's going to end up with 20 kids taken into care.

'It has to be stopped. I'm ashamed to be her sister.

'She's not worried about the babies - she's told me that. She said that every time they take one she will just have another and they can pay for it.

'She's used to them taking her children so it doesn't affect her. She is sick.'

www.dailymail.co.uk...


What are your thoughts? Does the pregnant mother of 13 children ( all of whom have been taken into care by child-services due, it's claimed, to neglect) have the right to continue bearing children despite the liklihood any further children will also be taken into care ?

Should the woman (she and her husband live on welfare payments - see above) be sterilised ?








[edit on 1-8-2009 by St Vaast]

Maaaaan such a rough subject lol. Honestly, she sounds crazy to me, and she has already destroyed 13 kids' chance to have a family. Why should she have a chance? I would definately vote for sterilization (in this ONE extreme case) as long as family members agree to support that decision. Its just like a vegetable on life support if you think about it. Family members have the choice to end their life, why not their reproduction (again, only in a small amount of cases).
Or that husband of hers could have some self-control and put on some protection.

reply to post by mooseinhisglory


What a sad story, from the point of view of the children.

Unfortunately, I don't think that anyone can be forced to be sterilized but in this case I would definitely vote for it.

According to the 'baby machine's' sister, she (baby machine) has said she will 'keep on having them' regardless.

The sister is quoted as saying she believes her sister the baby-machine is doing it 'out of spite'.

Then you glance at the amount this pair of irresponsible breeders is collecting per month in welfare and other payments, courtesy of the over-stretched tax-payer.

Reason the baby-machine receives additional welfare is stated in the OP as being because 'she has difficulty walking'.

On top of that and other payments, the baby-machine's partner in crime (her de-facto spouse) collects a 'carer's benefit' for looking after her .. while they're both at home, not working in any case.

But the 'carer' doesn't seem to exercise much care when he's impregnating his baby-machine partner.

The products of their irresponsible breeding are then shunted into foster-homes, while the breeding-pair get busy making another one, during all that leisure time they apparently have while their tax-paying supporters are up at dawn and off to work.

I'd vote for sterilisation of both the baby-machine and her de-facto spouse. And I'd be putting them to work at something they can do sitting down, to force them to recompense (albeit in a very small way) all the tens of thousands of pounds they've cost the UK taxpaying public.

It's to be hoped the UK government drafts legislation to address situations such as that posed by the baby-machine. Just my opinion

Man, I just don't know. Part of me says yes, the other says no. They obviously shouldn't be bringing children into this world, as there are many others who shouldn't either. But forced sterilization? I just can't see it.

If I HAD to chose, I would say no. She shouldn't be sterilized unless she consents to it, or her husband gets sterilized. The only reason I chose this is because it would be setting a VERY VERY dangerous precedent. It is a line that will continually be pushed further and further back until men/women are forcefully sterilized for the most dubious of reasons. I can see it happening.

Edit to add: Wouldn't they have to sterilize the father too? he's obviously the other half of the terrible parenting equation.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by nunya13]

reply to post by nunya13




Fair enough.

But do you really believe we need more offspring from this pair and lots like them ? As disclosed by the source (in OP) several of their offspring have inherited conditions and some have died from same. Shouldn't some DNA strains be made extinct ? What's the point of allowing less than optimum creatures to breed more of themselves? Isn't it time we as a people decided to breed from the best, the way dog and cattle breeders do?

Originally posted by St Vaast
Shouldn't some DNA strains be made extinct ? What's the point of allowing less than optimum creatures to breed more of themselves? Isn't it time we as a people decided to breed from the best, the way dog and cattle breeders do?

Hitler had a similar idea.

For those that abuse the welfare system, they should be put into workcamps to pay off their bills.

reply to post by yizzel


And stick the taxpayers with another bill for childcare while the creature is away at workcamp?

Sterilization of people like this is nothing but a good thing.

Originally posted by TheAftermath

And stick the taxpayers with another bill for childcare while the creature is away at workcamp?

That's the point of the workcamps, it's where they work to repay their debts.

fixed: typo

[edit on 2-8-2009 by yizzel]

reply to post by TheAftermath


Here is Hitler all over again - would you like people to be exterminated?

Think long and hard here - would you like it to be you?

Although I dont support what this lady has done it would suggest she needs help and support to keep one of her children.

To sterilise this lady or any without any consent is wrong. What is being suggested here is eugenics.

Many countries including the Uk and the USA have used this in the past.

reply to post by spellbound


I live life responsibly.

I dont live above my means, I dont place a burden on others, and I sure as hell dont have kids I cant support on my own.

People like this woman should be exterminated as she is a burden on everyone around her.

reply to post by ladysharrowandherbarrow


There is nothing wrong with eugenics.

Public resources are very limited. People like this woman should just be left alone to die.

Would that be better for you than extermination?

reply to post by St Vaast


No.

Because then it will be easy to extend that mindset to sterilize or pevent a lot of people from having or keepin children.

A slippery slope.

reply to post by St Vaast


And the spartans used to leave less then extremely healthy newborns on the hillsides. Should we do that also?

Mandatory birth control injections should be a requirement before anyone receives a public assistance check.

That leaves them an option that isnt forced.

If you want to be a parasite on the system, the system has an obligation to limit the amount of damage you can cause to the public wallet.

It is a difficult question. However I think parent(s) should get one child on the dole but if you have a second while being suported by the government, YOU have to support it and all government moneys are removed.

The problem stems from governments creating another job title "welfare mother" Eugenics is a bad precedence so let mother nature take care of the problem instead. If the parent(s) have to work their butts off they may not have the time for more kids. If they know all that nice free money will go away if they have a second kid they will stop having the second kids.

The biggest problem is welfare is used to buy votes so politicos do not WANT those welfare mothers to stop having kids. That is the reason the system rewards them for being "Baby Machines" or "Vote makers" The Politicos are not having to dig into their pockets to pay for all those kids, instead they make millions after those kids and their parents vote them into office.

reply to post by TheAftermath

Mandatory birth control injections should be a requirement before anyone receives a public assistance check.

That leaves them an option that isnt forced.

If you want to be a parasite on the system, the system has an obligation to limit the amount of damage you can cause to the public wallet.

Either that is ignorant hate speech of someone very young and certainly male, or it's of someone rather unwell. I do hope you never get sick and unable to work, or suffer mental health issues (although they may already be present it seems), lest someone deems you a drain.
How brainwashed to believe in the wage slave system so wholeheartedly. The woman if you desist from the knee jerk reaction is clearly not quite right and probably needs therapy to sort out why she behaves like that.
But to have the rather unwell thoughts that you have does not make you much better, and certainly not of better stock, as I cringe at the thought of children growing up with parents who think as you do. To want people to die or be exterminated makes you as psychologically unfit to breed as her. Nazi sympathies makes you unfit to breed, shall you submit to sterilisation?

Originally posted by mooseinhisglory
Or that husband of hers could have some self-control and put on some protection.

She's already proven 13 times, the point of it is to have a baby.

She's also proven that she will go to other men if he husband won't take care of it.

So the only solution is to tie her tubes and be done with it.