Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Forced sterilisation. Who is bu?

177 replies

pyjamaramadrama · 10/03/2014 11:06

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.

OP posts:
Dinosaursareextinct · 10/03/2014 19:19

The thin end of the wedge - very dangerous to set a precedent that forced sterilisation can be the right thing to do.
And if the children are adopted when young she hasn't ruined their lives.

Skivvywoman · 10/03/2014 19:21

But look at all the children who can't be adopted!

springtimedaffodils · 10/03/2014 19:24

In a sense, a sort of sterilisation is already taking place with subsequent children being taken into care.

Obviously, she can still experience pregnancy and birth but she will not experience motherhood again.

NoodleOodle · 10/03/2014 19:26

I am against forced sterilisation.

Original poster
pyjamaramadrama · 10/03/2014 19:31

I think that SS do do a lot offering support, financial in the form of ensuring a family are receiving all of the benefits that they're entitled to, help to obtain white goods and other essentials such as beds and bedding, help with housing, food bank vouchers, grants for uniforms and bus passes, free childcare, courses, counselling, parenting classes. I'm not sure that they could do any more to help. I think that they don't always remove children straight away because often people can improve with the help offered.

Parents aren't always prosecuted because I imagine that there isn't always evidence of any physical harm to the children. Even if a child discloses sexual abuse it can be extremely difficult to even get that to go to court.

OP posts:
Original poster
pyjamaramadrama · 10/03/2014 19:36

People who say that there should be forced sterilisation, would that be for cases such as this where somebody has more or less proved that they will never be able to parent, would you cast the net wider and say men who leave a string of children without supporting them? Would it be for someone who has multiple children but relies on benefits?

OP posts:
HolidayCriminal · 10/03/2014 19:44

Man with string of unsupported children that he knew about and who were subjected to neglect/abuse, but did nothing to be involved in their lives or fix 'em, yes there is a case for sterilising him.

Not the benefits case; I can't see what benefits has to do with anything. Being on benefits isn't a form of neglect or abuse.

Original poster
pyjamaramadrama · 10/03/2014 19:58

No of course it's not but I bet that there'd be people out there who'd say that unless you can fully financially support a child then you shouldn't have one.

Also long term unemployment or 'worklessness' is a cause for concern according to the governments Think Family agenda, and they have people who intervene in family life over this.

OP posts:
HenriettaMaria · 10/03/2014 20:00

Not the benefits case; I can't see what benefits has to do with anything. Being on benefits isn't a form of neglect or abuse.

No but there are people who argue, on here and elsewhere, that you shouldn't have children if you cannot support them without state help.
A simple way of ensuring that such women don't require state funding is to prevent them having the children in the first place.

I guarantee that there are, at least some, politicians who think it would be a good idea - even if they don't dare articulate the thought.

HenriettaMaria · 10/03/2014 20:01

x post pyjamarama

hackmum · 10/03/2014 20:08

Icimoi: Beethoven was the second child of seven.

Bogeyface · 10/03/2014 20:12

he type of people who behave like this are the last people the world needs contributing to the gene pool. At some point society needs to accept it's responsibility to future generations, do we allow a certain type to out breed everybody else creating something similar to Idiocracy? Or do we try to create a future generation that can have some hope of developing civilisation?

Ok so lets invoke Godwins law.....

You do realise that what you are saying is that you support eugenics, the same process that the Nazis implemented during WWII? Clearing out those who were not desirable breeders?

Where would you stop?

Bogeyface · 10/03/2014 20:15

Henrietta Is right.

I have seen on MN people say that above a certain family size women should be forced to get a coil or implant in order to receive benefits. If you get state sanctioned sterilisation for women in the OP (and presumably the men involved if they can be found) then it is a baby step to forcibly sterilising a woman with 4 children on benefits.

DonnaDishwater · 10/03/2014 20:17

Link it to benefits. No benefits unless you voluntarily agree to be sterilised. I think reality and pragmatism has to take precedence over vaunted idealism in cases like this.

Bogeyface · 10/03/2014 20:18

BINGO!

Original poster
pyjamaramadrama · 10/03/2014 20:19

And there goes the slippery slope that I was talking about...

All of the people who would agree with forcible sterilisation have different ideas about the how's and the whys.

OP posts:
Mumoftwoyoungkids · 10/03/2014 20:24

Forced sterilisation is horrific. No matter what the circumstances. It's pretty horrific to take a child from their parents - but acceptable as the child's needs have to come first. But you can't put a not yet conceived child ahead of a parent - in the UK we give no rights at all to a 23 week, 6 day fetus.

Incidentally I spent today with a little boy who could be this woman's 9th child (taken into care at birth, older siblings). He is wonderful. He makes the world a better place just by being in it. He has made my friend's life complete. He will have a wonderful life or my friend (his adoptive mum) will die in the attempt!

ChoicesChoicesChoices · 10/03/2014 20:26

I would support forced long term contraception - could be linked to benefits like donna has suggested.

Don't buy the slippery slope arguement at all but still find forced sterilisation tough to swallow.

capticorn1 · 10/03/2014 20:28

Forced sterilization already happens and it is decided upon by a court.

I remember reading about a forced sterilization a few years ago.

Try googling it.

hiddenhome · 10/03/2014 20:29

I think they should offer financial incentives for people to get sterilised or undertake long term contraception. They should also stop Child Benefit for the third child and offer walk in abortion clinics.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 10/03/2014 20:30

Further to Bogey's point - I have an IQ of 160. As does my dh. We both are incredibly healthy. He is an ex junior international at sport.

Should we be allowed to stop at 2 kids or should we be forced to do our duty to future generations and have 12?

Bogeyface · 10/03/2014 20:31

Can I just point out that you get abuse and neglect everywhere, not just in the families of benefits claimants.

I realise that some of you may not believe this, but people on benefits can be very good parents and people who earn a shed load can be abusive and neglectful. But hey, dont let the facts stop you.

Bogeyface · 10/03/2014 20:33

They should ...........offer walk in abortion clinics.

WTAF?! "More babies than the state says you can have? Pop into "Babyaway!" this lunchtime and let us relieve you of the burden you are placing on the state!"

Shit, did I just move to fucking CHINA and no one told me?!

HenriettaMaria · 10/03/2014 20:34

Link it to benefits. No benefits unless you voluntarily agree to be sterilised. I think reality and pragmatism has to take precedence over vaunted idealism in cases like this.

Dear God.

BINGO! Indeed, Bogeyface I despair. Sad

FudgefaceMcZ · 10/03/2014 20:37

He is clearly wrong and it's very fucked up that you even feel the need to ask that. Would he be so blase about the men who fathered then neglected (it is neglect to leave children in an abusive environment, which they obviously did) these children being vasectomised (a far less invasive procedure than female sterilisation) against their will? If not he's a misogynist dickhead. I'm sure he does a very nice nazi salute.