Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 52rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Duncer. 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.
must as i would like to say yes, where would it stop?
much, sorry
No. Although what they did was awful in the extreme there is no call for ever forcing sterilisation on someone.
omg that poor wee mite.
No absolutely not, despite it being the most tragic of events.
looked better with a shorter URL

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1206076.html

and no.
Yes, normal people would use bonjela and patience

The important factor here was the poor child, give hard drugs to a baby and you don't deserve to father/bear any more
No, as much as you don't want these particular people to parent again...it is a knee-jerk reaction. Poor baby...RIP.
Question Author
Most junkies are utterly incapable of looking after themselves so why should they be entrusted with the life of a child?
Yes, to an extent. What about IUD or CIC until the drug user is 'clean'? What sort of a life does a child have being born into that environment?
I've been present twice when babies born via caesarean section have been immediatley removed in similar circumstances.
There's no winners.
Do you know many junkies? I think you'd be surprised at how many high functioning junkies there are.
Question Author
If the child is removed then it wins.
The winner would be a child not born in such circumstances Duncer, IMHO.
Once a junkie, always a junkie? Absolutely not so, as Ummm says there are enormous amounts of high functioning drug users and even more people who are ex drug users.
Do we also then extend that to alcoholics who let's face it can pose a huge threat to their children as well, or perhaps people who occasionall have a few too many? What about people who are just incredibly stupid, mentally subnormal, disabled, blind, deaf etc etc etc the list goes on, any COULD pose a threat unintentionally, most don't. To enforce sterilisaiton on anyone is the start of a very slippery slope.
Nox...'Do we also then extend that to alcoholics who let's face it can pose a huge threat to their children as well, or perhaps people who occasionall have a few too many? What about people who are just incredibly stupid, mentally subnormal, disabled, blind, deaf etc etc etc the list goes on, any COULD pose a threat unintentionally, most don't. To enforce sterilisaiton on anyone is the start of a very slippery slope.'


If parents from these groups inflict suffering/death on their children then they too should forfeit the right to have more kids.

These junkies killed their baby by feeding it heroin, mere sterilisation is far too good for them, they should be strung up
They didn't 'feed' their baby heroin. They stupidly put it on their babies gums.
Quite Ummm, assuming it would help it with the pain I would imagine. At no point did they intend it any harm, they behaved very stupidly with tragic consequences, but so do many people, I repeat joeluke are you going to sterilise them all?
Years ago didn't Gripe Water have a fair level of alcohol in it?
Probably.
That makes it ok then ummmm does it????

Bonjela (or Yank equivalent) wasn't available where they live then?

1 to 20 of 52rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

A Case For Sterilisation......?

Answer Question >>