A pregnant woman who has already had 13 children taken into care last night vowed to keep on giving birth until she is allowed to keep one.
Theresa Winters has spent almost half of her life having babies, but has not been allowed to keep any of them beyond the age of two. Even her own sister believes that she should be sterilised.
But Miss Winters, 36, a heavy smoker who was herself taken into care as a teenager, insisted it was time for a ‘second chance’.
She accused social workers of failing to help her achieve her deepest wish of having a family with her second partner, Tony Housden. She admitted that social services had probably made the right decision in removing her first 13 children because of neglect, but said she had ‘calmed down’ now.
Miss Winters, who is 25 weeks into her 14th pregnancy, said: ‘We feel like social services are treating us like murderers when we haven’t done anything.
[…]
Speaking at her home in Northampton, Mrs Walls said: ‘Whenever I have asked her why she keeps getting pregnant when she knows the baby will be taken off her she says, I don’t give a s*** – I just want the Government to pay for them.
-facepalm-
Makin’ Bacon! Hell this woman should start an adoption agency or something. Seems to me a lot of discomfort to go through for a child she knows they’ll take away. It would be cheaper for the government to get this woman some psychological help. For those that recommend forced sterilization, my response – Are you a NAZI?
>For those that recommend forced sterilization, my response – Are you a NAZI?
Why, did the Nazis do that?
#3
They dabbled in it. It was better in the end to just ship them off to one of the extermination centers though as someone who required a sterilization was likely a parasite to the state whether they could reproduce or not.
Most advanced industrial nations had eugenic experiments and laws in the first half of the 20th century. The United States officially had tens of thousands of people involuntarily sterilized. One of the more famous cases in the United States was Buck vs. Bell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell ). The Untied States was doing it well before the Nazi seized power.
@MikeN
Which is worse, sterilizing her or taking her children? They could just let her and her family live in squalor, that would be the libertarian thing to do.
This woman lives about 10 minutes walk from me.
I am just proud to see the accomplishments of a fellow Northamptonite published on my beloved Dvorak blog.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like that around here. But what is the answer to things like this? The sheer fact that she’s willing to sacrifice all these children just to “get one over” on the authorities proves she has a very immature mindset, and is willing to use children as mere tools of revenge, which means that they’ll keep getting taken off her. Its a self fulfilling prohecy.
Maybe in cases like this it is necessary for forced abortions/steralizations. If a woman is knowlingly having children despite not being able to raise them financially, or mentally, and forcing a burden on the tax payer is it right to have to take it? Should the right of the many outweigh the rights of the one…one who is knowingly doing this to the taxpayers. Each one of those kids is pretty much a life which is already ruined. Statistics show that adopted kids have a much lower quality of life, and in most cases go into crime a lot more than kids raised by their biological parents. This is cause the adopted ones, are usually shifted around, don’t get the individual attention they need when growing up, and lack any stablization in life. So it isn’t just the initial cost of raising them, but the cost of increased crime as a result of these kids.
This women is maliciously sacrificing lives in order to attack the government.
A terrorist maliciously sacrifices lives in order to attack the government.
I am not saying she is a terrorist. I am just saying there is not a whole lot of difference on a moral level.
Ain’t socialized medicine grand!
They get 1,083 pounds per month from the government for doing nothing.
(That’s US$ 1,784 per month or US$ 21,408 per year.)
Add in their public option health care plan which is totally free for the baby mill machine.
And she is pissed off at the government?
My brother gets SSI because his “back hurts”. So does mine! Anyway, he also signed up for a California Pot Card. Now, he does nothing all day long, still lives with our 87 year old mother (he is 55), and the government buys pot, munchies, and beer for him and pays him to sit on his sorry ass every single day and stay stoned. Meanwhile, I go to work every day, rain of shine, sometimes at 2:30am, sometimes at 2:30pm. Ask me what I think of free health care for all. Have you ever noticed that every single welfare recipient always has the biggest god damn television set in the world? And cable?
@Ralphie
Your brother has my dream job … except living with mom. You got to draw the line somewhere.
#8
I agree with you — as long as it’s on your dime.
#7 Sounds your brother has a miserable life. I couldn’t stand to do nothing, and I would not like to smoke dope either. I’d be afraid the pot would make it hard to excel as a fiction writer (do that at night).
As for healthcare, I earn it as part of my compensation package from my employer at my day job. I do have a large TV (one of those floor model consoles that I got for $25 after the digital TV switch), but I don’t have cable or a converter box. I read or write, watch DVD’s for enjoyment.
#10 Benjamin…are you #7’s brother? Why are you defending yourself then?
Clearly, this woman is mentally ill, and should be institutionalized. While this would still be a financial burden on society, at least she wouldn’t be out on the streets getting knocked up every 11 months!
After careful observation I have determined that the pregnant woman in the picture… is on the right.
6 jbensons
“Ain’t socialized medicine grand!
They get 1,083 pounds per month from the government for doing nothing.”
Getting 1,083 pounds per month is NOT socialized medicine. Fortunately, even though she is obviously a bad person/mother, her INNOCENT CHILDREN will get proper care… But, as a true American, you probably think the children should die just to prove that she’s too poor to have kids and therefore the babies are unworthy of life…
#14 “But, as a true American, you probably think the children should die just to prove that she’s too poor to have kids and therefore the babies are unworthy of life…”
There are plenty of infertile couples who would love to have babies. Her children will be fine. This story is worthless without the photos of her stretch marks after fourteen children.
#15, Benjy,
There are plenty of infertile couples who would love to have babies.
And every State has a long list of children waiting to be adopted.
Living in a free society means the idiots are free too. Nevertheless, there may be 13 happy adoptive families out there already… and 15,000 more waiting to bring up this kid in a good home.
She seems like a complete waste of space, I’d go one step further than sterilization and just eliminate her. She serves no purpose and has no benefit to mankind
I have just two words for her, “butt secks.”
The Vatican must be proud of her, she does not use anything which would stop them to have a baby. Someone must help and show them how to use contraceptives.
I’m beginning to think that the forced ‘flu vaccinations’ are actually a good idea. Maybe I’m starting to get with the program.
My Colleagues and I are having a great laugh reading this Blog… Go Plebs Go…!!! Some of UK Finest I see?… At least you know what her hobbies are?… Does she have a sister?.. easy date?.. 🙂
Sigh, Its said but true that only the crazy English are reproducing at a decent rate. On the whole the population is going extinct.
Solution:
State will hire a full time nanny to watch over the kid(s).
Woman agrees to voluntary sterilization.
State saves millions in CPS budget.
Alternative: Woman is arrested for “littering.”
Folks, do yourselves a favor:
Do NOT click through to the article and look at the full-size photo.