It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:14 AM
Forced sterilisation?

WW2 Death tolls

What did all those folks die for, if we step into that particular abyss?

What do we become, if we accept such an idea?

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:29 AM
While I don't approve of forced sterilisation, I also don't want my taxes to be paying for that layaway waste of human space.

She's merely living off the state (me and my fellow tax paying citizens) and will continue to pump out children regardless, says her sister.

Statements like this :

The couple, who live on £1,100 in benefits, believe they could save enough money to move abroad.

So she gets income support and benefits and intend to leave the country on it and get out of the limelight.
That's just taking the p**s.

I've done everything by the book for my entire working career here and I still can't afford to buy a home. Makes me wonder, who's the real idiot...?

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:54 AM
Rather than sterilisation or other prsonally invasive measure, just cut all welfare payments starting today. If she loves kids that much she can get off her arse and get a job working with them instead

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Taikonaut]

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:15 AM
It seems 4 of the children were taken away after their second birthday and the others were seized soon after birth, hence 9 of her children were taken from her in the hospital.

However I do do not know the full facts of this story, I do not know the family or the alleged "neglect" . Neglect what was this neglect? is there anymore information of the alleged neglect provided by the quality newspapers that have reported this? What of this degenertative disease ..which one is it?

excuse me I do have to use The Sun as my source here as they seem to be the first source of the story..The Sunl

A former foster carer who took in one of Theresa's babies when she was just a day old insisted social workers were right to take the child away. The woman, who did not wish to be named, said: "The system isn't perfect but in this case they did a fantastic job.
"That little girl later went to a lovely home with a mum and dad who had been trying unsuccessfully to have a child for years.
They loved her so much and I know she will have a good life.
"She is not around parents who smoke and shout."

indeed !

Now let is for a moment ask why are they taking 9 of her babies away from her in hospital. Can you imagine the damage this may cause.....

ahh maybe this may have something to do with it

town halls compete for payouts of up to £36 million for increasing the number of children they remove from their natural families and place with adoptive parents

Labour's adoption targets to be scrapped

A controversial policy offering cash rewards to councils for arranging "forced adoptions" of newborn babies is to be scrapped after its dangers were highlighted by The Sunday Telegraph.
Under the initiative, town halls compete for payouts of up to £36 million for increasing the number of children they remove from their natural families and place with adoptive parents.

The original aim of the drive, announced by Tony Blair in 2000, was to reduce the amount of time children spend languishing in council care before finding permanent new homes.

However, critics have claimed that the Whitehall targets give councils a perverse incentive to take more children away from their natural parents, rather than trying to find homes for hard-to-place children already in their care

Family courts are the B-side of the law

In 2002, the ECHR ruled against the British Government for removing a new baby from its mother in hospital and refusing even to let her cuddle it under supervision, when there was no evidence that the baby faced a serious risk at that time. The judgment came too late, though. The baby had already been adopted.

I pay 40% tax... as well as tax for my home run business. I dont get up in arms about sharing money... I dont blame this woman or others if i cant afford to buy a home..
. Does it make you feel any better if you imagine your money is not spent on this woman and her family.. Can you imagine that she and her family are supported by the taxes paid by people who can read between the lines and assume all is not as it seems here.
I do hope she has her baby, she keeps and looks after her baby..
Do not lose sight of the fact she is a human just as you.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:15 AM
One small thing that never seems to get mentioned is the issue of personal responsibility. Can this woman afford to have children and take care of them?

I have a neighbour, unfortunately in the council provided apartment below me, who now has 3 kids. Unmarried, never done a days work but has everything provided by the state - ie ME, the taxpayer.
Yes, everyone has a right to have kids if they want them, but along with that comes the responsibility of looking after them and having the means to pay your way. Why the hell should I, working my arse off, have to pay for her babies and their needs when she has never, and probably never will, contributed anything to society herself. She too is hardly a candidate for a "Mother of the year" award.

It's also true of the so called "Pro Choice" idiots who maintain that a woman should also have a choice to terminate a pregnancy. Yes, there may be times when for some reason a termination is advisable or required. But, it should not be used as a means of negating personal responsibility in getting pregnant in the first place. Abortion all too often seems to be an easy way out of a drunken knee trembler with persons unknown.

Personal responsibility is now dead and the state is expected to make everything right.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by neformore

Your argument that all the people who died in WW2 to prevent such an act goes back ways.

People did not die and suffer in WW2 so we can have a society of spongers who do what they want and then expect the State to hand out cash. Those who died and suffered in WW2 came from a generation that understood social responability and great deal more than the generation than this women comes from.

And they died and suffered so we could have a free and better place to live in, not one overrun by those too stupid to comprehend their actions.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:55 AM
I wouldn't normally agree with forced sterilization but this woman has clearly neglected her current 13 children and doesn't care enough to fight for them why should she be allowed to have more to neglect and not fight for.

I mean really how many parents here would fight to get your child/children back if the government took them away due to one thing or another? You'd fight right? You'd do everything in you power to get your flash and blood back with you, change what got them taken away? Actually give a #? Or if you were mentally ill and a danger to the child you'd let them go, it wouldn't be easy or pleasant but you'd know that it was safest for them to be with a family that could raise them.

This woman is acting purely on spite against the child protection system - her own sister (who has managed to keep her children!) even said so and thats just impossibly unfair on those 13 little ones being bought into the world as a pawn against a system meant to protect them

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by ladysharrowandherbarrow

I understand what your saying. In my job I saw how the system works/doesn't work. This woman may have valid issues against the state but you don't use children as a form of protest. She has gone beyond that and is using her children as punishment against the state. There are many avenues, at least in the US, for people who feel they're being treated unfairly. Popping out one child after another is not a healthy way.

These parents need to fight to regain custody of their existing children before having more. Even if the system is corrupt they are choosing to play their role. They are setting up their own children for a lifelong connection with a perceived corrupt system. I hope the kids find better homes but using them to prove a point is just morally wrong. If the system is that bad she needs to opt out instead of entangling herself and her offspring further into it. If she is trying to prove the state is kidnapping children for cash she could have shown that many children ago. As it stands now I'm afraid she has lost all credibility. Maybe the state is guilty but she's not exactly the poster child for winning that fight.

This woman & hubby are quite sick and need help. Is this the product of a lifetime in a state run system or the result of unaddressed mental issues it's probably a little of both. It's sad she can't see what she is doing to her children.These parents have lost what it means to be human and are using their children as pawns.

A state run program doesn't give something for nothing. As long as you take what they give you've got to play their game. Many moms I knew found the system too intrusive and counterproductive they took steps to get out. That's why this system is for those who are lost and desperate not for those who are just looking for an easy income. You can't pick and choose the rules that work best for you. Whether it's corrupt or not Welfare is not a viable career choice and can't be molded to suit ones goals. It's what it is.

I've known many disabled people who work. Many feel it keeps them in touch and makes them feel better about themselves. We have the sheltered workshop where mentally/physically challenged individuals work under supervision at many local businesses. They are a great bunch and contribute much you can see the sense of accomplishment in their faces. It makes them mature in ways setting back and collecting a check never could. They go on to live normal lives like the rest of us, working and contributing to society. Shame on a system that strips people of their humanity. It does a great disservice.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by Freedom ERP

Well, politically, if its money you are worried about, theres the cost of a nuclear deterrent, two aircraft carriers, a fleet of F-35 planes, several billion pounds of bank bailout money (Barclays made a 3billion profit according to the news today) the costs of hundreds of Quango's, wasteful Civil Service practices and millions of pounds of MP's expenses that need to be reconsidered and recovered before we kidnap people against their will and start sterilising them. I reckon that lot totals in excess of £100billion of tax payers money that we could do without spending.

Morally, all I can say is this.

Anyone who thinks that kidnapping by force (and lets face it, shes not going to submit peacefully) and performing surgery on someone is a correct and proper course of action would make Josef Mengele proud.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Zot Twady
Oh yeah, sterilization is OK, just this one time>>>>WTF PEOPLE!!?!?!??!!
Maybe the problem is that this sick person is reacting to her situation...maybe if the government didn't get involved at all, she never would have had so many children.

Whoever says she should be sterilized, why don't you go ahead and line up to put your balls on the block? Doesn't sound good?
Why not?
Oh, you're not as bad as her right?
What if a bunch of people got together and said oh yeah we all agree, you're not fit...
Then what?
Slippery slope folks...
As disgusted as I am with this story, forced sterilization is not the answer.
If it is, then let's all call it quits, becasue someone out there is bound to think that YOU'RE the problem eventually.

I wish I could give you applause. You deserve it.

If we start forcing sterilization on anyone, as I said in another post, the line will be pushed farther and farther backward until people that agree with the sterilization in this post because they "aren't as bad as she is" are sterilized for having point of views not in line with what "they" want society to portray.

"First they came for the Jews..." etc, etc.

First of all, people have the ability to change. People have the ability to be taught a better way. MANY of the things wrong with this world is due to utter ignorance, such as statements like, if you don't see the world the way I do you're an idiot and everybody should live, think, and feel the way I do and the world would be a better place.

This woman obviously is either ignorant or has something wrong with her and there are other ways to fix the problem without having to resort to such disgusting tactics as forced medical procedures because we believe we should be the judge of who should be able to reproduce and when.

Some of you are acting as if the only thing to bringing up a child is having a good financial situation. So if your parents can't support you financially you have no business being born?

Why don't we start sterilizing anyone with a criminal background. No retarded or physically disabled people (due to genetics) should have children. If your IQ isn't high enough we're going to sterilize you.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:52 PM
Tough call. But no, I do not believe we should ever forcefully sterilize anyone. But I do believe they should have all of their government benefits revoked. Yes, that is harsh but if anything is to be done, I'd suggest that over forced sterilization.

This couple is moronic but I just don't believe in forced sterilization. It could set a scary precedent for others 'unfit to reproduce.' So take away all government benefits and welfare but do not forcefully sterilize. Not ideal but at least it's something.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by neformore

Exactly, people are so worried about their money going to raise kids. But apparently don't have a problem with their money being used to murder people and fund corruption and "black projects".

Let's just "exterminate" and sterilize everyone we deem unfit in society. Problem solved. Then we can all live a harmonious existence, finally. Gee, why didn't we just think of that before. Then our taxes can go to fund the above projects.

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by nunya13

Which section of the Constitution states that public funds may be used to fund social programs?

Please spare me the usual "well which part says its ok to fund black ops, etc etc etc", and just answer the question.

The government has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to see to it that our money is used responsibly.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by TheAftermath]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by TheAftermath]

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by TheAftermath

Hows that sound?

Great. Should be used in schools too.

I also think children should be separated into All boys, All girls schools in junior high and high school so they will pay attention to their studies instead of courting rituals. Swap the teachers around if you have equality problems. With the USA school system on the bottom of the heap we need to do something quick. International american companies WILL NOT HIRE US grads they prefer grads from abroad.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:29 AM
Yea ok I wouldnt want to see this start a precedent but those kids didnt ask to be born just as a spite towards the government and those are the ones whose parents have basically given up on them and will just get another ... They dont seem like people who look at their children as anything other then possessions they can treat however they want

I dont know what the best solution is here but that couple should not be allowed to produce any more offspring

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in