Forced sterilisation. Who is bu?

[pyjamaramadrama]

My boyfriend and I got into a heated debate over this at the weekend.

We were speaking about someone I know 'of', she's had 8 children, there are 5 different fathers and some dispute over the paternity of the children. The children have all been neglected, emotionally and physically abused and are now all in care and have unfortunately been separated as they all had different needs and physical and behavioural problems due to what they have been through. She is now pregnant again and the baby will be taken straight into care.

My boyfriend thinks that she should be sterilised because she will just go on having more babies who will be taken straight into care. I think that he is wrong.

My argument against is that where would you draw the line? This woman's situation is extreme, but would it open the door for other 'undesirables' to be sterilised? I also said that she may still turn her life around, unlikely, but she could.

His opinion is that even if she did turn her life around, she's ruined all those young lives and doesn't deserve a second chance, he compared it to killing somebody, I made the point that even murderers get a second chance.

I asked him if he also thought that runaway dads should be sterilised, he said that they should. See how the gates have opened?

I'm pretty sure that most on MN wouldn't agree with forced sterilisation, but I'd be really interested to hear some intelligent arguments about why this could never work. Or perhaps some people think he has a point.

Interesting about forced contraception, less invasive yet the result is the same.

But as that would seem more acceptable and more humane, would that then make it easier to impose on a wider group of people who it is deemed shouldn't have children?

Also it wouldn't work for men.

I wonder does anyone ever go to prison for not paying child support? I can't remember how many go to prison for not paying their TV licence but IMO not paying child support it much more serious.

I would never agree to enforcing it, but there should be a cash reward for doing it responsibly for people meeting the criteria. My dn's father has been in and out of jail his whole life, he's 34 and has 4 children by 3 people, 3 of them so far taken away by SS. He's proud of himself! If he could get 1000 for having the snip it'd save the country a lot of money in the LR.

Oh and re child support, some men cannot be found as they are living off the grid with women but not putting themselves on any bills etc.

BackOnlyBriefly but just think, you could have a 'reattachment party' kind of like a second stag do

there are charities in USA which pay dysfunctional people to get sterilised; the idea was hotly debated on MN with similar posts to this thread.

Sex offenders in some US states have opted for chemical if not actual physical castration, usual with a sweetener like early parole from prison. How is that so different from OP's example, I wonder? Just because it's abuse rather than neglect?

The state interferes with lots of our freedoms. I can't marry my mother or wave my privates around in a public place. I am not sure if I can agree that reproductive rights have a sacred status.

She isn't getting a 'second chance' - OK, she probably did, OP isn't clear - but she isn't getting any more chances as this baby will be taken straight into care. She will, presumably, never be able to live with any of her children again. So while the repeat pgs are far, far from ideal, she is being very strongly sanctioned for them.

I suspect - and could be being massively unfair here - that if her other children had been taken earlier and unequivocally, she may have got the message sooner too. I do think the adoption process favours the rights of the parents to have a family, rather than the children to have a good life.

Sex offenders in some US states have opted for chemical if not actual physical castration, usual with a sweetener like early parole from prison. How is that so different from OP's example, I wonder? Just because it's abuse rather than neglect?

The difference is the word opted, they have chosen to do it ok with good incentives but it has still been their own choice. Offer incentives by all means, why not give a premium on benefits for those whose doctor can confirm they are using some form of long term contraception but it would never be right to force sterilisation on someone unless they can not and never will be able to understand the choice.

Would this also be considered for men who father a large number of children with different women then do little or nothing to support them?

You can't. You just can't. I mean, I'd love to sterilise some men and women with a rusty blunt knife, but really, you can't.

I'd actually like to see some children removed from some parents' care much sooner, before sustained abuse.

No to sterilisation. It's barbaric and totally against our basic human rights as women.

Yes to taking them at birth once the proper procedures are followed. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt a baby and good foster carers who will support in the interim.

No to forced sterilisation.

Where do you draw the line.

Quite Laurie. Even the most fertile woman takes 8 years to produce 8 children. This should have been nipped in the bud when she started abusing DC #1.

BackOnlyBriefly but just think, you could have a 'reattachment party' kind of like a second stag do

Or more likely as a pre-stag do, as I cant see a man getting married without everything being present and correct!

I disagree with forced sterilisation and forced contraception. The reason being that forced contraception is only a baby step away from sterilisation and also carries the same risk of the slippery slope.

It starts with women who have had children removed due to neglect or abuse and then what? Every girl that gives birth under the age of 16? or 18? Or hasnt got a job? .... once you start something like this it snowballs.

It is also monstrously prejudiced against women. None of these women get pregnant on their own, but because the women are easier to track down they would be the ones carrying the can.

In certain circumstances I do agree they should be sterillised!

Where I stay they are screaming out for foster carers as there just isn't enough with the amount of kids in care due to neglectful families!

Sterilisation or a long term contraceptive, should be offered in these circumstances, but never forced. Rather than being tutted at, these women need someone to talk to them and listen to them and find out why they repeatedly end up in such situations.

And the same should go for blokes who go around, knocking multiple women up, many of them pretty vulnerable, themselves, and never taking any parental responsibility.

Indeed Wilson, but it isn't always that simple.

Without going into too much detail as to how I know of this family. But people can be very difficult to keep track of when they move around a lot. Refuse to engage with health visitors. Things don't always become quite so apparent until the children start pre school and the attendance is erratic, they come to school hungry, inn appropriately dressed or injured.

Parents are offered all kinds of support and given warnings to improve their lifestyles and sometimes thing improve for a while before getting worse again. It's not very easy to find adoptive or foster parents, or even to get through court to remove children, there needs to be lots of evidence that the children would do better in the care system.

I know it's not simple pyjama but I think the evidence should be weighted differently tbh. I also think refusal to engage should be a much bigger red flag, but I know a lot of MNers think that's nonsense too. I also agree forced sterilisation of women is hugely sexist, no-one's talking about sterilising men, are they?

It is a massively complex situation.

We use to say that if people went on Jeremy Kyle they should be paid 2000 but they had to be sterilised!

I think forced sterilisation is not really compatible with a liberal society. But court-mandated long term contraception might well be reasonable, in extreme cases where an individual is clearly unable either to control their impulses or to cope with the resulting children.

Shouldn't it be investigated why a woman would have child after child knowing she can't care for them and that they'll be taken from her? Clearly something is very wrong in her life and simply punishing her isn't working because if it were she wouldn't be pregnant again. Sterilising her would be a quick and nasty "solution" - she'd have no more babies but her children would still have a birth mother with serious problems.

The idea of forced permament sterilisation makes me feel sick. I feel that there are better ways of preventing unwanted babies being born. There are options like the coil/ mirena or a contraceptive injection than can prevent pregancy. Prehaps bribary to have a contraceptive injection is better than forced sterilisaiton.

I can understand your boyfriend's sentiments, it could be argued that people who serially abuse children (Ie. Baby P's mother) should be sterilised with a blow torch. It is not right that people get away with wrecking young lives. However our justice system does not drop down to the level of criminals. We try and treat people as humans even if they don't act like humans.

8 children, all neglected and abused, and you still think she may be able to turn her life around? How many more children should be sacrificed to that belief, do you think, op?
I agree with your DH.

When you go down that road,who gets to decide who should not have children?

It's far to much of a slippery slope