Banned from having children.

Nicole - posted on 06/22/2010

child abusers definatly sew up and cut off without a doubt.mental illness on the other hand i would not,there are many people with mental illness that cope just fine and with the right support and sometimes medication there is no reason that they shouldnt be allowed to have children.and as for people like the octo mum who is single with what 13 14 kids or something,i havnt really watches her story but if all those children are loved and cared for then theres not really a huge prob but i personally think that she should not be allowed anymore,she has enough already and there are many people out there who cannot have kids and would love too when she just pops them out one after the other.

Lyndsay - posted on 06/21/2010

Personally, I think it should depend on the individual situation and several other variables aside from the fact that one of the parents has a mental illness. Is the person in a committed relationship, or do they have any other stable supports (extended family)? Does the other partner have any mental concerns? Have either of them ever been convicted of abuse or sexual assault towards a child? Are they able to care for themselves and their day-to-day needs? There are way too many things that would need to be considered. Realistically, it wouldn't be possible. The courts can't just issue a warrant and send some workers to the house of each person who has been diagnosed with a mental illness to follow them around for a few months and live in their house to determine whether or not they are suitable to become parents.

Becky - posted on 06/21/2010

Having been a child protection worker for 8 years, there are many people I wish we could ban from having children! However, people with mental illnesses are not in that group. I agree that with medication and the proper support, many people, even with severe mental illnesses, are capable of being very good parents. They need to be monitored, to ensure they remain on the medication and access the supports they need, but they can parent.
The ones that get to me the most are the mothers who repeatedly permanently damage their children before they're even born by heartlessly refusing to give up drugs or alcohol while they're pregnant. I'm not talking about a woman who has a glass of wine once or twice while she's pregnant, I'm talking about the women who drink heavily throughout pregnancy and have children diagnosed with FASD. I always said that once a woman has had 2 children with FASD or born with drugs in their system, she shouldn't have the chance to do that to another one. Of course, I realize that will never happen, and it doesn't allow for the possibility that people can and do change, but it's just incredibly frustrating sometimes to see women having 5-6 children, all intellectually and emotionally damaged as the result of her drug or alcohol abuse!

Cathy - posted on 06/21/2010

Katherine I agree that there are so many other reasons people shouldn't breed. Singling out people who have conditions that they are not responsible for creating, isn't the answer.

Amie - posted on 06/21/2010

I can't find the story! Ugh!

Katherine - posted on 06/21/2010

Sorry to jump in off topic to what you guys are talking about, I didn't read all of the posts :/

Katherine - posted on 06/21/2010

How about the people who have 10 kids? The ones who can't stop? People who are mentally ill aren't the issue, it's the ones who keep procreating putting their own children in foster care homes because they can't afford to take care of them.

I find that extremely offensive. Hell, let's prevent anyone with a cancer gene or predisposition to, from having children. Isn't that ridiculous? Those people were probably showing signs and no one did a damn thing.
There are other much better reasons for mandatory sterilization.

Amie - posted on 06/21/2010

I fully agree with that Cathy. If there's a history, then yes take the newborn. Like the mother I mentioned earlier. I'll go hunting for the article in a bit, getting the kids ready for school so trying to be quick here. LOL!
.

Just in case scenarios are wrong though. Especially if they go off checklists (like they do here) and don't take individual circumstances into hand. Which where some children, fall through the cracks.

Cathy - posted on 06/21/2010

It's certainly not common place but so often a story pops up in the media like this. I think it's easier for SS some of the time to take a newborn from innocent parent who may not have the ability to fight back and get it adopted, than it is to take a toddler away from abusive parents.

They don't have the right to take a baby from someone "just incase", same as there it's not right to sterilise somebody "just incase".

If a parent has a history of violent abuse or neglect THEN I would support removing a newborn.

I also support removing an infant from the care of a drug addict. The difference being that if they choose to get help and some long term birth control, they get their baby back. If they decline the baby gets adopted. They lose all rights.

Amie - posted on 06/20/2010

Thank you Cathy! I'm still reading but that first one I read was horrifying! =S I've never heard of SS here taking children without a history or proof that something is wrong. /:) Even then, they sometimes drop the ball and wait too long.

Meghan - posted on 06/20/2010

My mother's mom was schizophrenic....it created HUGE issues for her! She ended up killing herself (my Grandma, not my mom) and I don't really think my mom has ever really dealt with this. From what I understand, she wasn't a HORRIBLE mother, but there is A LOT of annimosity on my mom's part 30 years later.
I don't want to say that people shouldn't have kids (short of pedophiles but that is another topic right?)....it's totally not my place to even comment on that. Mental disorders CAN be monitored and helped. Drug addiction CAN be over come! It totally depends on the person! Is it fair to automatically take a baby away b/c you HAVE used drugs or DO have a mental illness? IMO no! Should those people be monitored and helped? Absolutely!!
Some responsibilty also needs to be put on the father of the child! If a man has any question in his mind that his g/f or wife may not be able to handle being a mother, or their unborn child may not be safe, WRAP IT UP!!!
There needs to be more education and help available for woman BEFORE they start bringing children into the world IMO. Mental illness is still so taboo. Because you are "sick" doesn't mean that you can't be a great mom...they may just need more resources.

Johnny - posted on 06/19/2010

I know that in British Columbia where I live a newborn can be taken from its mother at birth if she is believed to be a risk to the safety of the child. Most of these occur in cases of drug addiction or demonstrable mental illness. As a child protection intake worker I was involved in several cases where the child was in the custody of the government from birth. And my neighbor's second grandson was also in custody from birth (the first grandson was abandoned with her at 8 weeks old by his meth addict mom)

One case that I was involved in was a mother who had unmedicated schizophrenia and who had refused for years to take any medication. She believed that the government was out to steal her baby, and she was right. But can you imagine what could have occurred if she had been given the chance to care for that child?

The basic rules were that those who were addicted to substances had to enter into a rehabilitation program and demonstrate sobriety. Throughout the process they would be allowed access (usually supervised) with their child in order to build a strong relationship. They also had to take parenting classes and jump through some other hoops. Some parents (mostly the mother, but sometimes the father) would be so jarred by having a child that they would follow through and succeed at regaining custody. But sadly, the majority never even bothered and most of our work was dedicated to getting them to give up parental rights so that the child could be adopted.

The rules for women suffering severe mental illness was the same, get treatment, demonstrate stability and a plan for staying stable, accept that social workers are pretty much always going to be checking up on you, and take the parenting courses. My experience was that the moms with mental illness were a whole lot more likely to take the steps to become proper parents and care for their own children. In several cases, they had been medicated before the pregnancy, had to go off during, and were keen to get back on a solid regimen and take care of their child. Many of these women had families who took care of the kids in the mean time, and in many cases, we allowed the mother to live in the home with the stipulation that another caregiver was to always be present. Many of these cases were successful.

However, women with multiple issues combined with their mental illness, such as homelessness, drug addiction, psychosis, often permanently lost custody. These kids would usually spend their young lives in foster care, because it would take a very long time for the parental rights to be rescinded.

Cathy - posted on 06/19/2010

Also read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...

Suzette - posted on 06/19/2010

Mary, I agree it is also unethical and immoral. And yes, the entire situation is disgusting... those two should be beaten within an inch of their lives.

Mary - posted on 06/19/2010

Suzette is absolutely right; to merely "ban" people from having children based on a diagnosis of a particular disorder would be discriminatory (as well as unethical and immoral, IMO).

And to Amie - I agree with you. Here in the states it is exceptionally difficult to have a child taken away UNTIL they do harm to the child. Not even having lost custody of prior children is necessarily enough to have them placed in foster care at birth. I have been horrified on more than one occasion that a baby was allowed to go home with a 'mother' who has a history of either abusing, or seriously neglecting other offspring, and has lost custody of them. SS monitors these cases, but unless a parent willingly gives up custody, it is damned hard to take them away until AFTER they have hamred/endangered this child.

Another F'ed up thing? Even if the mother is in prison, she does not necessarily lose her parental rights. She cannot have physical custody of the child - they are placed in foster care (or, if the father or family is involved, they may care for them), regardless of what she is in prison for. There was recently a case in my area of a seemingly normal couple who had 5 children. Both parents came from normal, functional homes. The husband had a good job as an engineer, and she was a SAHM mom, 30 weeks pregnant with baby #6. The father brought the youngest, aged 2, into my hospital's ER, claiming the child had the flu, but had "become" unresponsive. His body was cold, horribly malnourished, and covered in bruises. He had been dead for more than a few hours, and further examination revealed multiple old fractures. It was obviously a case of long-term ongoing abuse and neglect.

The four remaining children had various issues. The older, school-aged children were physically fine. The younger two had some pretty significant mental and physical delays, although no bruisng or old fractures were noted. The oldst two went to live with a grandmother (who had been estranged form them for several years, and had never even met the youngest 2). The remaing 2 were placed in foster care, and needed a lot of physical and mental care.

Turns out the mother was an unstable, unmedicated bi-polar. The husband claimed he was "so busy" working all the time to suport his family that he rarely saw the children...he left for work before they were up, and the yougest were always in bed by the time he got home, so he did "not notice" anything amiss.

Both parents were found guilty of various charges, and are currently in jail. That baby she was pregnant with? In foster care. Despite a sibling that was willing to adopt the baby, the parents maintained that they did nothing "criminally" wrong, and refused to terminate their parental rights. They would not agree to the baby going to the Aunt. Although the child SHOULD be an adult by the time these 2 get out of prison, if one of them got out of jail early, they could pursue custody. The child CANNOT be adopted because of this.

Disgusting, isn't it?

Cathy - posted on 06/19/2010

Amie - This is one of the most recent cases hitting the headlines



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8315...



updated here



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...



Thankfully here

http://www.stateintervention.com/search/...

Amie - posted on 06/19/2010

Do you have something for me to read about it Tracey? That's what I was asking for. You just replied with examples again and no articles for me to read.

I appreciate you are in a different country and it may be different. I still want the examples (articles) I can read myself.

Tracey - posted on 06/19/2010

Amie - there have been several reported cases in the UK of social services taking children straight after birth if they feel the parents are mentally incapable of looking after them, there have also been cases of families going on the run, even to other countries when this has been threatened. Social services have also banned a woman with learning disabilities from getting married as they felt she was unable to understand the meaning of the marriage vows.

Shannen - posted on 06/19/2010

My mother is bi-polar NOT all bi-polar women are psycotic.My mother is an amazing woman and obviously if she had been banned from having children i would not be here.
I don't fully agree with your idea and also think it would be way to hard to enforce.
I do believe that a person who has these disorders should be getting the correct help before they have children. Again i'm just not sure how they could make it law.

Suzette - posted on 06/18/2010

I agree with all the ladies who have said it's a slippery slope to attempt to decide who can and cannot have a child.

Quoting Mary,
"Any history of seizure disorders? You could have a seizure while driving, or carrying your child down a flight a steps. We'd better sterilize the epileptics and diabetics of the world while we're at it. They too are known to be suddenly and unpredictably incapacitated by their disease, and could inadvertently cause harm to their children."

I'm epileptic. Do you know how many women have accidentally killed their children because they've had seizures? Do you know that depression actually comes along with epilepsy? Most epileptics are on some type of medication for depression. (I'm not, only because the medication I take actually treats both.) Some epileptics have severe depression, some don't. Based upon that, epileptics have a double whammy against them, should they have an IUD placed in them until they can "prove" themselves?

What about the fact that there are quite a few forms of BC that epileptics can't even get approved for because it can cause seizures? How about the fact that women, in general, can't get approved for some forms of BC because of their body chemistry?

We can't force any type of BC, sterilization, etc. on women (or men for that matter) simply because we don't agree with some kind of illness (mental or otherwise) that they may have been diagnosed with. It's not just a slippery slope, but it's discriminatory.

Amie - posted on 06/18/2010

Elisabeth then you're not talking about sterilization at all, you're talking about long term BC.

Sara - posted on 06/18/2010

While I agree that there are people in the world who should not reproduce, you could never make laws saying one person can have a baby and another cannot...that is a slippery slope morally, I think, and not the place for any government or governing body to decide. I wish that all child abuse/neglect and mental illness could be irradicated from the world, but that's not a realistic goal. I think that even if laws were put in place as to who can reproduce and who can't, people would find some way to fuck their kids up.

Jaime - posted on 06/18/2010

The simple answer for me would be 'no'...but it's difficult because there are so many children that are abused and killed each year as a result of inadequate parents. GAH! I have a friend...actually 'had' is a better word and she has not yet been officially diagnosed with a mental illness but all roads lead to crazytown for her. I was friends with her for almost 16 years and did the best I could to be supportive of her struggles. In 2007 she converted from Christian to Muslim so that she could find a man and get married and have a baby (I secretly hoped she would be barren). So she found a husband online...she chatted with him for a couple of weeks and then hopped in a cab with the clothes on her back and moved to another city all in one day without a word to anyone. When I did hear from her, she was days away from getting married. The phone call after that was to tell me that she was pregnant...crap! I was immediately concerned for the well-being of her unborn but there was little I could do because she was so far away and I had no contact info for her. Over the course of her pregnancy she was beaten and abused by her husband but each time she told me that it was okay, that it was his right to hit her. She threatened to commit suicide a few times, she got into physical fights with him in her 9th month of pregnancy, and she had been diagnosed by doctors as being depressed...with prescribed meds...meds that she did not take during pregnancy and only took when she felt like it otherwise. Her daughter is now 18 months and she is pregnant with baby #2...oh, and a different man. What frustrates me is that she had confided to me that she had tried to slit her wrists during a fight with her boyfriend (in front of her child) and that she was having a tough time coping with life in general. I recommended counseling and to see a doctor but I couldn't yet call CAS because I didn't have an address (I later got the address and called). I have since stopped being friends with her because she was sent back to the doctor and she was required to go to counseling and given more meds, but she chose not to take them consistently (claiming that she was fine some days and didn't need them all the time) and now that she's pregnant she won't be taking them at all. I am so frustrated with this entire situation because although her condition is not properly diagnosed, it's not difficult to see that she has some severe mental problems that she's refusing to deal with...I fear for her children but I've done all that I can do and can only hope that someone steps in and does the right thing. She's not a good mother because she refuses to acknowledge her problem and get proper help but she can't be stopped from having children and that just makes me furious!

Elisabeth - posted on 06/18/2010

Some very interesting points being raised. One thing I have to point out is that I'm not talking about permenant sterilization. I want to give an example, a women who has a child and is diagnosed with lets say, serious phycosis, and she refuses to take her meds and as a result, killed that child. But she doesn't care she can just have another one. What if there was some 'law' in place that says that women has to go on the Implanon (which lasts for 3 years) after she was released from whatever jail/assylum time she served. During those 3 years she was continually monitored to be sure that she took her meds, understood the responsibility of having a child (perhaps having to look after a 'real-life doll' for 6 months) and did all she can to prove she could be a fit mother, then the implanon was removed. Just like a drug/alcohol addict has to go through rehab and prove themselves to be a fit parent when they decide to step up. (Yes I do think repeat drug/alcohol addicts should also have some sort of longterm bc too). I know that would leave so many holes in the system but it's not like I'm actually saying this will happen I'm just trying to give an example. I'm not talking about people that have been diagnosed with some sort of mental illness but never had a history of causing harm to others, I'm talking about people with a serious and threatening illness, with a history. My father had schizo. and he never harmed or threatened anyone, I'm not talking about these sort of people. Just using the news example I gave above, the parents had a history of abusing their older child, not much but still, so as a precaution they were visited by ss and the ss even went into the house while the young child was being killed and they didn't even ask to see the child, what a huge failure on their behalf. And the mother refused to take her meds, not sure about the father but still. Or another example, last year a man in my state killed and buried his young son in a shallow grave. I think it was about 6 years before he had his other son taken away from him because he severally abused and almost killed him. He then went on to have another child and there was nothing in place to prove that he had changed his way, he was never even monitored by ss. Maybe that poor child would still be with us if there had been something in place.

And Laura, your right rapists and pedos should have the death sentance but for the least get sterilized, I have no sypothy for them!

La - posted on 06/18/2010

I think convicted repeat rapists and pedophiles should be sterilized...hell I think they should be given the death penalty (but that's a whole other debate)

Rosie - posted on 06/18/2010

my sisters son was born with pot in his system and he wasn't taken away from her. we didn't know about this until 4 years ago when the shit hit the fan and she went cookoo and lost all of her kids. don't know the circumstances as to why she got to keep caleb at birth.

Rosie - posted on 06/18/2010

i don't feel it's right. once we force someone to be sterilized you open up a whole can of worms that we don't want to. we might as well start forcing someone to get pregnant or stay pregnant for that matter as long as we're taking control away from the individual in the first place. nope, don't like it.

Rachelle - posted on 06/18/2010

This is never going to happen anyways. They will never force sterilize anyone. You would need to be in a mental hospital or prison and still most likely wouldnt happen. Even child abusers who have their children taken away end up getting pregnant again right after they loose their kids. This is just society. Mothers who are completely normal and amazing people get post pardem after birth and really loose it sometime. Does this mean they get their kids taken or sterilized. I understand what you are saying, and yes there are certainly people out there who should not be allowed to have kids, but this is never going to happen. There is no possible way to determine who is mentally ill enough to not have kids. Alot of people hide it well and alot of people who dont, are great sane people on their meds. Its something that will stay the way it is forever.

Hannah - posted on 06/18/2010

This is a toughie...

My mom has some very serious mental disorders. She functions like a normal adult. You would never know that she suffers from extreme panic/anxiety attacks or battles her mood swings from one minute to the next. She is a great mother, the best mother I could ever ask for.

But then you have my crazy aunt who has mental disorders and learning disabilities and she has 4 kids. She can't take care of them physically, emotionally, financially or any way possible. My other aunt just recently contact child welfare on her and she ran with her kids to another state. These poor kids- what do you do??? She should have never been allowed to have 4 kids.

Who can determine that though and how would the regulate or enforce this kind of rule. As someone said, it is so frustrating and sad to see these kids who deserve so much more. You want to save them all and would do anything. Unfortunately, there isn't a way and never will be and God, that breaks my heart!

Amie - posted on 06/18/2010

I know about that type of situation Sharon. Those have prior instances that they have to go on and a reason behind why they are taking the child. It is the same up here. There was a case in the news last year (year before that maybe) of a mentally ill woman in BC (I think it was, maybe Alberta) who was pregnant and SS had already told her they'd be taking her baby once she gave birth. She had already lost her oldest two children and was making no effort to change or get help. She was quoted as saying That she'll just keep having babies until they let her keep one. /:)

When I was writing back to Tracey she made it sound like (whether intentional or not) that any parent with a learning disability or disorder was having their children taken by SS and handed up for adoption. Which just isn't true.

Sharon - posted on 06/18/2010

People who are a clear danger to their kids aren't allowed to keep their kids anyway. I just think we need laws to fix the current system. There are women in the US whose (is that a word?)kids are taken from them at birth. Drug addicts usually. In at least one case a woman who was psychotic and refused to go on meds. Turns out she went off her dangerous meds in order to carry & deliver a non med affected child - docs knew this but ignored her dedication anyway.

A woman who is clearly dangerous to her kids and has a baby anyway - will just lose the child at birth.

I didn't make the rules or the situations above - its already happening. I'm just saying we need a better & more consistent way of handling some of this. I just don't know how to implement it.

Amie - posted on 06/18/2010

Sharon,
I think we all have those thoughts. "My god what is HE/SHE doing having children." etc.

We can't make it into law and it shouldn't even be tried. It is different from thinking it though.

As for IUD's and more permanent BC. What about those people who get pregnant while on it anyway? One of my best friends just gave birth to a baby boy this past spring. She had an IUD, she thought it was falling out after having it in for a year. She went to the doctor but no, she was pregnant with #2. What about then? Do we then take the next step and force abortion on the people not deemed worthy of having children?

Amie - posted on 06/18/2010

Tracey,



Where have you heard that? (I want examples) I have never known SS to take babies upon birth if there was not a history. Never mind the fact that they can not put a baby or child up for adoption without giving the parent time to recover from whatever the issue is in there eyes. The only way adoption happens right at birth is if the mother signs it away. No other way. I've grown up around some despicable people. As we got older I still heard from them from time to time. One of my HS friends older sister. She lost all 3 of her children because she was found to be a coke addict and a dealer. It took her a few years (she did go to jail after all) but she now has all her children back. She's clean, has "found god" and is living a good life with her children. Even in HS I saw what a mess she was turning into. Now that she's in her 30's she's completely turned her life around. When SS did take her children too, they weren't placed in care. They went to their grandmother. SS's ultimate goal is to reunite family if it is possible.



Learning disabilities also do not cut it for taking children away without a history behind it. I know more then enough people with them, from serious to minor (myself and family included in that list), who have raised/are raising happy productive children.

Sharon - posted on 06/18/2010

In my perfect world? those who got help don't get sterilised. Unless you've actually been convicted or found insane - nothing happens, you get your treatment, you live your life badda boom badda bing.

People aren't to be rounded up based on some random test or leaked medical records and forcibly sterilised. I wasn't even thinking of like a complete hysterectomy or turning men into eunuchs... implanted IUDs or slow release BC, for men.. it gets more tricky doesn't it? But in my perfect world they have IUDs too. well, something like an IUD, lmao seeing as they don't have 'uterines', lol.

But I do agree that enforcing these ideas/ideals? would be next to impossible. I just agree that there are those who should not be ALLOWED to procreate. If you killed 6 of your kids in a bathtub, you should be sterilised, full hysterectomy, if you have kidnapped children and raped them you should be turned into a eunuch, shit like that.

Mary - posted on 06/18/2010

While we're at it, why not ban anyone who cannot financially support themselves from having children too? An inability to provide food and shelter can harm a child as well.

Oh, and perhaps people with a history of substance abuse or DUI's should be sterilized as well.

Anyone own a dog on here? There are numerous cases of children being mauled by the family pet; some of them resulting in fatalities. Of course, it could also happen with the neighbor's dog...we'd better ban people who live in areas that allow dogs from having children as well. You just never know when Sparky might jump that fence and attack your child.

Any history of seizure disorders? You could have a seizure while driving, or carrying your child down a flight a steps. We'd better sterilize the epileptics and diabetics of the world while we're at it. They too are known to be suddenly and unpredictably incapacitated by their disease, and could inadvertently cause harm to their children.

I understand that the OP's question/suggestion is coming from a place of frustration with the seemingly senseless and often preventable tragedies that occur to the children of this world. I too have wondered how a child could have ever been allowed to live in what, in retrospect, is an obviously hostile and unsafe home situation. Trust me, as an L&D nurse, there are A LOT of people I think should be forcibly sterilized.

However, when I really think it through, I realize that enforcing and legislating such policies is nigh on impossible and impractical.

Tracey - posted on 06/18/2010

My husband and I opted for sterilisation a soon as we had a severely mentally disabled child to prevent us from having any more.
If parents have a mental illness severe enough to prevent them from looking after a child they should be sterilised, There have been several cases of women with learning disabilities giving birth and social services taking the child immediately for adoption, would it not be kinder to these women to stop them having the child in the first place?

Cathy - posted on 06/18/2010

How would you enforce such a law? Would it just be those patients on psych wards that get dragged off kicking and screaming that are forceably sterilised? Does doctor/patient confidentiality go out the window in favour of rounding up all the potential crazies who may choose to breed?

I have a friend with bi-polar disorder (triggered by bad PPD). During a manic pyschotic episode she jumped out of second storey window, convinced someone was in her house and trying to kill her. No one is more grateful than her, that her son was not with her that day. She's now properly medicated and a fantastic mother. If she chooses to have another child it holds great risks to her mental health as she'll have to change medications. It's her choice to make though, no one elses. If she does make that choice she'll need careful and daily monitoring and a whole lot of support from her family.

Very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Who decides what is "serious"? I agree with Christina, it's Eugenics and an abuse of a basic human right. To judge and sentance an entire group of people based on the actions of a few is not acceptable.

In regards to the case mentioned. The mother was already distancing herself from the mental health service. She should have been better monitered with a new baby because the risk of psychosis return after child birth is high. The death could have been avoided. They knew her husband had mental health issues. They knew they were religious fanatics. Authorities could have intervened sooner.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Sarah - posted on 06/18/2010

I agree with all those who have said it's a slippery slope.
While I think that people with serious mental health problems should probably be monitored, I don't think you can force sterilisation upon them.

Lady - posted on 06/18/2010

I think it's a very slippery slope to start on. Once you give control to people over others reproductive abilities who know where it would stop. Who exactly would be the ones to decided what was a "serious" mental illness and what was a "minor" one?
I have heard of cases where women who have tried to commit suicide in the past or have had a history of self harming but have recovered then had their babies taken off them because they are seen as unfit even though they have never posed a threat to any child. It was thought that the children were wanted to give out to couples wanting to adopt.
I think that once you start saying who can and who can't have babies then it could lead to some very dangerous territory.

Elisabeth - posted on 06/18/2010

@ Carol, I never called you an idiot, once again I really have no idea where you got that from. If asking you to please read correctly is being rude, I really can't see how I could of wrote it any more politly.

C. - posted on 06/17/2010

Heck no! That is the same principle Hitler had (Eugenics, which was to prevent certain types of people and races from having children). It's wrong, IMO. My brother is Bi-Polar and I know he would make a wonderful father someday, should he choose to become one (lets just say that 7 niece/nephews in less than 4 yrs time has turned him off the idea for now). When my brother takes his medication, he is just like the average guy going about his business. There are times when he doesn't take his medicine and you can definitely tell, but I know if he was taking care of a child daily, he wouldn't make that decision. He's also OCD and would make sure he was able to anything and everything the right way when it needed to be done.

In the case of your OP, I'm sure the family and friends noticed something, in which case they should have done something to save that poor child, like call the police or Child Protective Services. IMO, the friends/family are just as responsible b/c they did nothing about it.

But I agree with Loureen.. You can't go around making blanket statements like that when millions of people who suffer from some kind of disorder go about their days just as smoothly as the next person.

Charlie - posted on 06/17/2010

Quoting Carol -I was comparing mental illness to physical illness. As a society we ostracize the mentally ill while giving sympathy and support to the physically ill. But in the case of a severe mental illness, it really is just as "physical" a problem as a severe heart defect. So I was drawing what is called an analogy between the two problems. Why is it that we can not find a way to support people with severe mental illnesses when they have children, but we will go out of our way to support someone with a heart defect. Both of them should really be taking a serious look at the reasonableness and safety of choosing to care for a child.

Precisely Carol !!!

Amie - posted on 06/17/2010

So then what about the people who are ok? Raise a family, then one day are hit with a mental illness full force?

It had been fine up until that point. Or had not even shown it's ugly head, until that time.

Are we supposed to just sterilize everybody who doesn't fit the "normal and happy" standard? Why can't be help these people as Carol has pointed out?

I still don't agree with sterilization. It is permanent and there is no going back. However even someone with a severe mental illness has hope of becoming stable.

Johnny - posted on 06/17/2010

Thank you for clarifying that Elisabeth. Just so you are clear, I am not an idiot and I am able to read perfectly fine. You, however, appear to have an issue with rudeness.

I was comparing mental illness to physical illness. As a society we ostracize the mentally ill while giving sympathy and support to the physically ill. But in the case of a severe mental illness, it really is just as "physical" a problem as a severe heart defect. So I was drawing what is called an analogy between the two problems. Why is it that we can not find a way to support people with severe mental illnesses when they have children, but we will go out of our way to support someone with a heart defect. Both of them should really be taking a serious look at the reasonableness and safety of choosing to care for a child.

Elisabeth - posted on 06/17/2010

@ Sharon, thats who I'm talking about, people like that who refuse to acknowledge their illness is dangerous and therefore refuse to take their meds. The court still allows him access to his children, that's what I mean, shouldn't they be doing something to take the children out of danger, not just allowing it.

Elisabeth - posted on 06/17/2010

@ Carol, those people that you wrote about that enjoy causing harm are the people that I said have a history of being abusive towards children. BTW I wrote 'serious mental illness', I really have no idea where you got heart problems from, that is not a mental illness. ??? Please read correctly.

Elisabeth - posted on 06/17/2010

Let me be very specific, I am not talking about people that have minor mental illnesses, I am talking about the people that lose control over themselves and don't relise what they are doing. I undersatnd that plenty of 'normal' people can easily 'lose it' too, but obviously we can't predict this, if we could wouldn't we try to stop it. If someone has a history of being abusive towards children isn't that letting off some pretty loud sirens. Shouldn't socity stop these people from harming other innocent children?

Johnny - posted on 06/17/2010

And what do we do with people who are just plain mean, nasty, and dangerous, but not diagnosably mentally ill? Many parents with mental illness take great pains to protect their children from any risk, while there are people out there who damage children for their own narcissistic enjoyment. And what about people with medical illnesses who could drop dead at any moment? Should we ban women with serious heart defects from becoming mothers because something could suddenly befall them leaving them unable to attend to their child or call for help? Personally, I think that as a society, we find a way to support all people who have children, and if anyone demonstrates their unsuitability, we take immediate action.

Charlie - posted on 06/17/2010

Shouldnt the 'normal " people who have sex and reproduce with dangerously ill people be banned too then , stupidity is 100x more dangerous and that can affect anyone .

Sharon - posted on 06/17/2010

Well there are plenty of non dangerous mentally ill people. I'm one. I'm no threat to anyone. I know a few ladies on COMs who are medicated mentally ill, they too are doing a fantastic job at being mothers/parents/good humn beings.

But then there are those..... who refuse to acknowledge that their mental illness is out of control, refuse to see that they can hurt people around them, who think they can control themselves simply through will power. those people need to be controlled since they cannot control themselves.

I know a schizophrenic who becomes dangerous when off meds but refuses to stay on them. Its only a matter of time before he murders someone. He's actually already tried to kill his mother and has been menacing and violent to many others.

He fathered a child with a moron who thought his 'danger' was romantic? WTF? now she's hiding him from. In sewers, strangers houses, etc. Its a small town. all the domestic violence shelters have been visited by him. But our courts say that since he has never shown a danger to a child......... yep you guessed it, he should be allowed access to his child. She's going to go to jail when she gets caught but she won't leave this pissant town. fucking moron.