ChatterBank0 min ago
Newcastle Mother's 17 Children Taken Into Care After Birt
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-36477 849
Hopefully, this is a rare case, but couldn't the various Authorities have done something, rather than wait in Maternity with wicket-keepers gloves on all these years ?
Hopefully, this is a rare case, but couldn't the various Authorities have done something, rather than wait in Maternity with wicket-keepers gloves on all these years ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.When I was young, there was a girl in the village who began having babies at 16 yrs.old. After she had had 8 (to different fathers) she was sterilised whether she wanted or not. It was done immediately after No. 8 - to the relief of her adopted parents who had taken the first 2 on. I don't know the law back then, but that's what happened - surely some sort of order could have been made in this case? What a miserable life to be pregnant all that time and face all those births.
It is a difficult situation as folk have ownership of their own body so the State will have moral difficult opting to operate on someone without their express desire for it.
On the other hand there is a responsibility for not only the stream of children, which means one breeding machine can generate loads of welfare requirement from the taxpayer.
Surely there must be a point at which the demand on the public purse takes priority and the (ir)responsible parent has to be sterilised ?
It may well be that they are mentally deficient. Continually producing a stream of offspring without the means to support them does suggest this.
Meanwhile no one has the moral right, on an overcrowded planet, or even country, to produce more surviving offspring than they and their partner reduce the population by when they die. To do so means they are part of the global overpopulation problem, not part of the solution.
On the other hand there is a responsibility for not only the stream of children, which means one breeding machine can generate loads of welfare requirement from the taxpayer.
Surely there must be a point at which the demand on the public purse takes priority and the (ir)responsible parent has to be sterilised ?
It may well be that they are mentally deficient. Continually producing a stream of offspring without the means to support them does suggest this.
Meanwhile no one has the moral right, on an overcrowded planet, or even country, to produce more surviving offspring than they and their partner reduce the population by when they die. To do so means they are part of the global overpopulation problem, not part of the solution.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.