Some people shouldn't be allowed have kids.

hoodwinked · 12-06-2014 10:26AM

Neyite wrote: »

But people are still reluctant to call social services when they see the child in their estate who is verbally and physically abused, showing obvious signs of neglect.

it's been done in our case, but the phrase "street angel, house devil" comes to mind, everytime they visit she comes out with "everything is fine here" and the kid backs her up for fear of being taken away.

Neyite wrote: »

How many more times before this did he go hungry? Was playing out on the street way past bedtime? Where there was a party going on in his house? Where he was inappropriately clothed for the weather? Neighbours must have seen something, or known that there were issues.

Neighbours generally do, but as i said above, nothing much can be done by the state in certain cases, and usually the worst ones until something like this happens.

Neyite wrote: »

If I neglected my baby even once, its once too often, and I'd have no-one to blame but myself if social services turned up on my doorstep. Parenting is a priviledge, not a right.

damn right, i feel 100% the same with my daughter, but then parents who think like that aren't the problem here.

Akrasia · 12-06-2014 10:30AM

Anyone who thinks there are any simple solutions to this problem are living in cloud cookoo land.

Each case should be treated separately. The only thing we as a society can do is increase the amount of resources we allocate to child protective services, and change the emphasis of the services away from 'the rights of the family' to a balance that hugely favours the rights of the children. This is what the recent childrens referendum was about. Parents don't have rights to have children if they are not prepared to look after them properly, but children do have a right to have their parents so we need to do as much as we can to protect their rights.

Where a young child is taken into protective custody, i would start the clock ticking very early and give the parent very short deadlines to demonstrate that they are prepared to make the changes necessary to raise a happy and well adjusted child and if the parents refuse or are unable, that child needs to be quickly moved into the adoption system to give him/her a chance to settle into a stable loving home as quickly as possible.

kylith · 12-06-2014 10:31AM

bluewolf wrote: »

On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea
On the other hand, you give people the power to take kids away and you get this
http://wgntv.com/2014/06/11/dad-nj-threatens-to-take-away-son-after-pencil-twirling-incident/

"a classmate claimed he was spinning the writing utensil like a gun."
How do you even twirl a pencil like a gun?

Neyite wrote: »

But people are still reluctant to call social services when they see the child in their estate who is verbally and physically abused, showing obvious signs of neglect.

They dont want to be seen to be 'nosy' or interfering. So it takes a random traffic stop to discover a badly sunburnt, hungry baby being driven around by a knife wielding drunk at 11pm for anything to happen.

How many more times before this did he go hungry? Was playing out on the street way past bedtime? Where there was a party going on in his house? Where he was inappropriately clothed for the weather? Neighbours must have seen something, or known that there were issues.

If I neglected my baby even once, its once too often, and I'd have no-one to blame but myself if social services turned up on my doorstep. Parenting is a priviledge, not a right.

I honestly think a lot of it is fear. If you make a call about neglect and the officials show up you'd better hope to hell that the parents never find out it was you who made that call or you will be in a world of pain.

denhaagenite · 12-06-2014 10:32AM

From breakingnews.ie

The child was taken into care after the incident, which occurred on June 8, 2013, in Ballybunion, Co Kerry, and was subsequently placed with his grandparents who continue to look after him, a court heard.

So he's not in "care", he's in the care of the people who raised either his mother or father to be such careless, abusive, dangerous w*nkers. I know we know nothing about the father, but the fact that he's not even present in this picture speaks volumes

The solicitor said that, since being jailed, she had turned things around, was doing well in the prison system and was drugs-free.
He also said she was in regular contact with her family and was looking forward to building a relationship with her child when released.

Bully for her. No justice for her child. What the f*ck is wrong with the system?

topper75 · 12-06-2014 10:38AM

KTRIC wrote: »

I know, take the kids off them and put them in a home somewhere in the West. A good upbringing by a couple of nuns and they'll be on the straight and narrow in no time. Sure whats the worst that could happen.....

Hee hee.

Now that we have recomposed ourselves after laughing at your sarcasm, we need to look for a solution. Care to post again?

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Eugenics has been tried before OP, it didn't go down so well.

So we reverted to a liberal agenda - which produced this. And will continue to produce this - as though that woman's right to reproduce comes before the rights of society and her offspring. I would endorse sterilisation in extreme cases like this with no qualms. Right to reproduce should be forfeited in such cases of outrageous neglect.

nc19 wrote: »

Where do you think the mother got it from?

In fairness - I did not see any convictions against the grandparents. It is the best option in the circumstances. I wish that child the very best.

Reformed Character · 12-06-2014 10:38AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Eugenics has been tried before OP, it didn't go down so well.

I never suggested eugenics.
Pathetic post really, add nothing to the thread!

Maximus Alexander · 12-06-2014 10:40AM

Reformed Character wrote: »

I never suggested eugenics.
Pathetic post really, add nothing to the thread!

That's exactly what the thread title suggests.

Reformed Character · 12-06-2014 10:41AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's exactly what the thread title suggests.

I suggest you get somebody to bring you to specsavers!

galwayredgirl · 12-06-2014 10:46AM

I know some people who are parents and shouldn't be, because they are too stupid and are just foisting their stupidity and insecurities onto their children.

Can't fix stupid and it's amazing how really stupid people can get together with people as equally thick. Like they seem so thick that they couldn't find anything yet they find each other and procreate! Amazing!

They must have inbuilt thick homing devices.

It's not just a Limerick thing by the way.

Maximus Alexander · 12-06-2014 10:49AM

Reformed Character wrote: »

I suggest you get somebody to bring you to specsavers!

Ah yes, let's get personal. Good show old bean.

Aglomerado · 12-06-2014 10:50AM

galwayredgirl wrote: »

I know some people who are parents and shouldn't be, because they are too stupid and are just foisting their stupidity and insecurities onto their children.

Can't fix stupid and it's amazing how really stupid people can get together with people as equally thick. Like they seem so thick that they couldn't find anything yet they find each other and procreate! Amazing!

They must have inbuilt thick homing devices.

It's not just a Limerick thing by the way.

Mike Judge says it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8rhIZJAdd0

osarusan · 12-06-2014 10:51AM

Reformed Character wrote: »

I suggest you get somebody to bring you to specsavers!

Limiting/forbidding the production of offspring from 'undesirables' is very much a part of eugenics.

DrumSteve · 12-06-2014 10:58AM

With all the recent revelations about the Mother and Baby homes and that around 180 children have died in state care in the last ten years; I'd be less than inclined to entrust any children to the state.

Then again it can't be much worse than having junkie parents can it?

Reformed Character · 12-06-2014 11:03AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Ah yes, let's get personal. Good show old bean.

FFS, Maximus, it is a witticism, oft used and in no way meant as an insult.
Apologies if it came across as anything else, my bad!:o

Reformed Character · 12-06-2014 11:05AM

osarusan wrote: »

Limiting/forbidding the production of offspring from 'undesirables' is very much a part of eugenics.

I never said anyone should be allowed to produce offspring.
Just that skangers like her should not be allowed keep them, they should be taken of people like that and adopted by court order.

Maximus Alexander · 12-06-2014 11:09AM

Reformed Character wrote: »

FFS, Maximus, it is a witticism, oft used and in no way meant as an insult.
Apologies if it came across as anything else, my bad!:o

Look, your original post suggests that certain people should not be allowed to have children. It doesn't mention anything about removing the kids from their custody, and in common English "have kids" is synonymous with "give birth".

Controlling who can and cannot have kids on the basis of some perceived level of quality or worth is eugenics. If you that's not what you meant, then say so - I just don't understand why you felt the need to get snarky and go on the offensive.

I feel like I've spent too much time even writing this post, because it doesn't seem like you actually want to talk about this.

Banjo String · 12-06-2014 11:09AM

folan wrote: »

how do you deny this right? forced sterilization? forced abortion? confiscating children from their birth parents after delivery?

in come countries, people arent allowed have more than 1 kid. Consider yourself lucky no one is sticking their nose into your womb!

you have a problem with bad parents, then report them. there are services dedicated to making sure children are not abused.

Well I didn't suggest banning people from becoming parents, I said it was a sad fact that some people should be denied the rights of parenthood.

I.e the act of caring for, and rearing children.

In this particular case, the mother should (at the very least) proven that she's been rehabilitating herself, and that she's capable of caring for the child.

A child quickly learns what it sees, and what it is subjected to after all.

minidazzler · 12-06-2014 11:10AM

westcoast66 wrote: »

My solution: Vasectomies all boys at the age of 12.

Reverse the operation on request when the couple choose to have a child. Vasectomise the man again when the woman is giving birth.

The children would never go through Puberty, so wouldn't ever actually be able to have children.... you've just killed the entire world.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 12-06-2014 11:11AM

minidazzler wrote: »

The children would never go through Puberty, so wouldn't ever actually be able to have children.... you've just killed the entire world.

Problem solved so.

anncoates · 12-06-2014 11:12AM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I keep coming across stories in the media of parents who are repeat offenders with chronic alcoholic/drug addiction using their addiction and the fact that they are the sole parent in a family to avoid jail. I honestly don't know how a child or children being left in an environment where their sole guardian is unable to take care of themselves let alone a child.

Leaving a child in that kind of environment is depriving a child of the opportunity to make something of their lives. I think those kids should be taken away from the parent/parents and it should be down to the parents to clean up their acts and prove that they can provide a stable safe environment for their kids.

It's wrong to leave kids there in those cases obviously but having a situation where it's easy to just remove kids forever from their parents without due care would be troubling too. It would also have troubling repercussions if you consider the amount of people that want to adopt. That's fine for serial neglecters that don't deserve children but you might have children taken away on other flimsier grounds like trumped up abuse or domestic type charges and whatever especially with inept badly resourced departments like you have here.

Your heart breaks for kids in this case and genuine people that want and can't have kids but we need to be careful about state power like that.

Maximus Alexander · 12-06-2014 11:12AM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Problem solved so.

In the same way that you could solve a problem with mice by burning down the house I suppose. :pac:

Ash.J.Williams · 12-06-2014 11:19AM

topper75 wrote: »

Hee hee.

Now that we have recomposed ourselves after laughing at your sarcasm, we need to look for a solution. Care to post again?

So we reverted to a liberal agenda - which produced this. And will continue to produce this - as though that woman's right to reproduce comes before the rights of society and her offspring. I would endorse sterilisation in extreme cases like this with no qualms. Right to reproduce should be forfeited in such cases of outrageous neglect.

In fairness - I did not see any convictions against the grandparents. It is the best option in the circumstances. I wish that child the very best.

it's a liberal agenda now is it?

westcoast66 · 12-06-2014 11:22AM

minidazzler wrote: »

The children would never go through Puberty, so wouldn't ever actually be able to have children.... you've just killed the entire world.

I said Vasectomise, not castrate!

topper75 · 12-06-2014 11:39AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it's a liberal agenda now is it?

In so far as ANYONE can have a child (indeed as many as they care to have) and this is viewed by lawmakers as some kind of inalienable RIGHT regardless of consequences, yes it is.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 12-06-2014 11:43AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In the same way that you could solve a problem with mice by burning down the house I suppose. :pac:

I never claimed it was a good solution :pac:

Ash.J.Williams · 12-06-2014 11:55AM

topper75 wrote: »

In so far as ANYONE can have a child (indeed as many as they care to have) and this is viewed by lawmakers as some kind of inalienable RIGHT regardless of consequences, yes it is.

it is a inalienable right....

There is an imbalance however and that is intelligent people are not breeding enough

Maximus Alexander · 12-06-2014 11:59AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There is an imbalance however and that is intelligent people are not breeding enough

Don't worry guys, I got this. Send the women around to my place, let's get this thing done. :P

Bock the Robber · 12-06-2014 12:02PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

There's proportionately a lot more in Limerick city though. That's why it's a kip.

Are you going for the moronic comments world record?

jimgoose · 12-06-2014 12:05PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Don't worry guys, I got this. Send the women around to my place, let's get this thing done. :P

<SNIFF> You Sir, are Superman, Clint Eastwood and Will Smith in "I Am Legend" all rolled into one. Thank you. :cool:

topper75 · 12-06-2014 12:22PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it is a inalienable right....

I doubt the cop who took off the toddler's urine-soaked socks at the roadside and smelled the beer on its breath would be of the same mind as you on that. But that would be pure conjecture on my part admittedly.

Some people shouldn't be allowed have kids.

Comments