Lets have a big debate!! Do you think drug takers and alchoholics should be entitled to have there children?

Question

I personally say no because alchoholics and junkies have no care about there children and let them live wit no quality in life at all shouldnt they just be taken to a home where they can have some quality of life and deserve things that they need instead of seeing there parents degrading themselves everyday.

(strong views and opinions are welcome)

everyone is ENTITLED to there opinion but dont take it personally against me this is research

Answer 1

The problem with alcoholics and drug-takers is that their addiction becomes all-consuming, and at the time that they need their next fix or drink, that is all they can think of, and everything else is forgotten.

Bizarrely, though taking hard drugs is considered the greater "sin", children born to heroin addicts can be successfully weaned form their addiction (though it must be a very unpleasant start to life).Children born to alcoholics are damaged for life. They are easily recognisable by their odd-shaped eyes, and have lower IQs and learning difficulties forever.

So I suppose, the proper answer to your question is no. Though I am sure I will be howled down.

Answer 2

You start by giving your personal opinion,
who made you god, love is the most important thing in a child's life. How can you know what is best in each case.
I don't drink or use drugs but this question has made me so angry.
Just who do you think you are.
People like Hitler thought they could take children away from their parents, and have them brought up as perfect citizens of the Reich.
Where will you stop if get this, take the children of the poor and give them to those with the money to give them a "better way of life"
You appal me (I have edited the line that was here, I accept that was too personal)
(strong views and opinions are welcome)
strong enough opinion for you?

Answer 3

Theoretically you have a good point. But there is one major flaw alas. What happens if a couple or a person develops an addiction after the child is born? I know if things get extremely bad the children will be removed, but how would it work that children are removed from their parents? Are you talking out and out sterilization or are you talking forceful removal? Or a combination of both? That last is not such a bad idea but it trespasses on very very scary ground both legally and ethically. As for a case-by-case scenario, that is about as good as it gets, but it also means Big Brother is even more into your life. How would that be done? Monthly check ups and blood tests? Seriously it is not so simple.

Do you recommend the "granny" system they have in China where an old local lady visits weekly to check on you? This is what they do there to ensure a woman is not pregnant after her only child has been born. She knows all of the women’s cycles and is entitled to check on these things. If she finds anything suspicious, or even a first time pregnancy, it is her duty to report to her superior.

What if an addict cleans up? What if she was sterilized and is now clean and leading a good life with a good husband? Should she be banned from parenthood because of a bad past? Often the only motive for a parent sincere on changing their lives is their children. Do you see how this is a double edged sword?

I am not arguing for or against at the moment. I am just trying to imagine how such a thing could be done. I agree that druggies and alkies should not have children. In many cases they should just never procreate. But how is this done without violating the rights of all people in the country? I was a foster mom a few times and I do know the horrific damaged done to children by incompetent neglectful and/or abusive parents.

It is criminal to have a child of seven sit at a dinner table and say they have never had a real cooked meat n potatoes meal.

It is criminal that on visit day the child goes out dressed in a pretty outfit only to return in something ripped and torn, knowing the pretty outfit was hocked to buy booze.

It is criminal when a lovely but broken child sneaks out of bed at night, breaks into the locked drug cabinet and eats all her Ritalin because “maybe people will like me even more” or “because I saw mommy eat pills.” Then turns around and stabs another kid in the arm with scissors for no reason at all!

It is criminal when a child has never learned kindness to animals or other people because their short existence has been so full of fear, pain and neglect.

It is criminal to have to pick up the pieces and undo the harm a few hours can do with these children, as you bring them back around again. It is criminal to have children passed on to the system because their parents have done them so much damage that they will never every be completely right again. You try and you try, and meet some success, but one visit to the parent and it is back to the drawing board.

The tough thing is these kids still love their parents! Often they just live for Mom’s or Dad’s phone call. Sadly, despite all the effort and money and love spent on these children, the greater percentage of them end up following in their parents' footsteps of petty crime and abuse carrying on the vicious cycle to the next generation. There are the occasional miracles but I found they worked best once the parent was completely removed from the child's life but things have to be so bad by then that the damage is almost irreversible to the child.

The more damaged a child is, the more expensive it is to care for it. The caretaker needs more because the danger and attention and the emotional toll are much more severe. There are specialists to see that add up amazingly. These children are often damaged mentally and slower in school, or have a lot to do to catch up with their peers. Which, I might add, easier and easier as the American educational system is being dumbed down by lowed educational standards.

For all the other things that are criminal the worst is the government systematically cutting all funds going into Foster Care. Both parties use patently false lies to cover up their greed. Hurricane Katrina is the latest. They claim the government is broke and so foster care, care to the elderly, and student loans are targeted. At the same time, upper income Americans are being given tax breaks that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. What are the priorities here?

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/the_misplaced_p.php
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003778.html

With fewer and fewer families able to take on fostering these days to lessened income and the generally tougher harsher climate of America, that too would pose a problem. The qualifications of the foster homes and the capabilities of the carers would drop and many of these young victims could easily end up victimized again in their new home.

I cannot see how it can work but it sure would be nice if someone else could and we solved things for these littlest victims of a cruel society.

Answer 4

I know some that cannot control their habits. There is a stupid line between intoxicated beyond functioning and taking a pill that the government says is good to sell, but not necessarily good for you.
We are a society of substance users.
People change, everything does. Hope for the best, help the ones that are too intoxicated with FDA approved or unapproved substances.
If a human is overly intoxicated they should not be asked to assume the responsibility of caregiver to a child.It is no good for the child or the adult.
Parent is not a entitlement of or by a court, it is an act of love by the individual.

Answer 5

I thing you should take every case on its own merit. Some people resort to drugs and alcohol due to the stresses and strains of every day life including children, I am not saying this is right, If a person is completely out of control with their problem I think it is then better to take the children into care where they are best taken care of

Answer 6

Sterilisation is somewhat too absolute, because it does not cater for the actual undeniable fact that the addict could mend their approaches contained sooner or later. they're now an ex-addict yet nevertheless sterile. permit's settle for it, various them do get sparkling finally. look at Eric Clapton. a extra effective thought is to impose some form of lengthy-time era birth control, for as lengthy as they have the dependancy. in spite of the undeniable fact that, those style of ideas ought to run alongside a desperate NHS help application to do away with the addictions and manage the motives of them.

Answer 7

I think EVERYONE who wants to have children should have to show they are fit to raise them.
There are heaps of kids that have rubbish quality of life with 'straight' parents, and well raised kids who's parents take drugs and drink.
Putting kids in state/foster care, in no way ensures good quality of life.

Answer 8

Dont talk shite. smoked gear 35 yrs, and had pancreatitis 3 times, first time father at 49, dont ask a question then answer it with your own opinion, worked hard all my life, consider myself the best dad in the world,would it be better if I mistreated her, fiddled with her, or "borrowed her out" to other people while being sober or not stoned? or maybe I should join a priesthood eh? my little gal has a great qaulity of life,I Just dont drink or smoke in front of her, misses does neither and doesnt allow me to, fuckiin do-gooders, aint got a clue.

Answer 9

that's your opinion but what about those parents who do not have a drink/drug problem and they abuse there children.
An addict does not always equal bad parent !

And some care homes/foster homes are really bad

Answer 10

No they shouldn't have any right to their children, and they should be sterilized so that they can't breed more. I also think hugely fat people who allow their kids to get fat should have their children removed and placed into a healthy environment.