Yeah, very difficult to be unbiased.
My immediate response is "string her up, a bullet's too good for the bitch".
I know a lady who had several kids by several husbands.
First one died of cancer when she was 19 and pregnant.
Second one ran off with another woman.
Third one died in a motorbike accident.
She's with her fourth husband and has 6 kids now.
Is she a low-life? No, never been on benefits, live in a posh area and are very active in their community through their church.
So, you cant label someone a low-life and shout "sterilisation" just based on the ratio of kids to partners.....although its tempting when I see photos of that shower of shite!

I read about this case in The Sun today - out of idle curiosity - and quite frankly, I dont believe half of what I read, but no wonder people are baying for blood.

I'm not defending her, just not sure she's quite as evil as she's been portrayed. A bit evil most likely of course, but I'd rather judge her and find her wanting based on her real crimes, not the scintillating claptrap the Sun churns out.

Personally, I think this matthews woman is a very good case for eugenics, yes.
But it will never happen, because she will have a plethora of social workers crying "human rights" from her corner.

But who decides is an idiot?
And who decides is lacking morals?
Which morals? Whose morals? On what basis?

For what its worth Claudia, I agree!

I cant begin to imagine drugging my kids so I dont have to pay them attention...the mind boggles.

But Cazz, which bit about her is a slapper? The fact that she's had alot of partners (apparently only about 5 or 6), or the fact that she's had alot of kids by them, or the fact that she's a useless oxygen thieving dss scrounging waster of an incompetent mother?
Lots of women have lots of partners - here on flirtbox, it has been well discussed that having lots of partners is not automatic qualification of Slapper title, depends on personal opinion ie personal morals - should any woman who has had oooooh lets say more than 4 partners, one nighters or whatever, be labelled slapper and be forced to be sterilised?...which is the point I was making.
I have come across in my past work women who have only ever had one partner and one child and totally useless at parenthood who I would dearly love the social services take the child away from them and force them to be sterilised.
Its always going to be a very grey area.

Personally, from a purely emotional point of view (and using my own moral sliderule) I agree with you and Claudia.
But, in the grand scale of things, it just doesnt work that way, does it?
I've just been reading about baby Aisha Allen.
Having been shook to death by her father for crying, he and her mother then had another child which the social services took off them when he got charged with manslaughter for aisha, now the mother's due another baby by another man....both parents have a very low IQ.
It seems their only 'real crime' is that they were both unfortunate enough to be born with low intelligence, and once again slipped through the social services net when if they had been given appropriate help in the first place, they might have cared for aisha alot better and not hurt and killed her, and if not been forced to be sterilised, why not encouraged to do so?
I chose to be sterilised because I had increased chance of having a baby that would be severely disabled and I didnt think it fair on said child, so why not these people?
Not forced, just encouraged. Same as any responsible mother encourages her sexually active offspring to use contraceptives, in effect people with very low IQs are never going to be able to be totally responsible for themselves and need help in making life decisions, and I think a social worker reminding these people to take a daily pill wouldnt go amiss, surely?