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.

No body said they were Mrs if they were then their children probably wouldnt have been removed.

What Revolting is saying is that there is probably more to this than the Daily Fail readers would believe. I very much doubt that anyone would want to go through pregnancy and birth in the knowledge that the baby will be immediately removed, that suggests a very damaged person. It would utterly destroy me to have to go through that, I would be sterilised in order to avoid it! That women do go through it says that there is more to it than stupidity, selfishness or a "fuck you" attitude.

Surely they must be somewhat disturbed though mrsjay?

I'm I being niave? Surely they can't just not care. I mean pregnancy and birth are huge things in themselves.

We've already been told that the woman's next baby will be removed by SS at birth - this baby and any subseqent ones will not suffer. They will be fought over for adoption. Removing a baby at birth is the very strong measure already available to SS in the case of a mother who is known to be an unsafe parent.

it is complicated yes they care but not enough sometimes for various reasons I dont know what it is and of course not every woman who has baby after baby is like this but yes women who have children already on the Child protection register will have more babies,

Perhaps they just like reproducing. Perhaps pregnancy fulfils some sort of biological need that they have. You get extra attention when you're pregnant and it can be a nice physical sensation feeling a baby growing inside you.

Sex can be more exciting when there's a chance of becoming pregnant too. Don't tell me that none of you have ever experienced this.

There is no shortage of people wanting to adopt newborn babies.

Providing the babies can be adopted (rather than being put into care) I think she can have as many babies as she wants.

But I think that non permanent contraception like mirena / implant should be strongly encouraged in cases like these.

maybe you are right Hidden i suspect a fair few women think like this like the whole baby pregnancy new man to have baby with and then forget that they actually need to care for this little person,

FWIW i dont think women should be sterrilised by law

Link it to benefits Really?

Why not stop messing about and just put all the poor in camps. It's a popular solution if there are groups of people you don't like.

As for the cutting benefit for the 3rd child it's cruel to starve children to death. We should just cut their heads off quickly and humanely.

Another thought, would those who would support forced sterilisation also support forced abortion, if let's say the sterilisation failed?

Backonlybriefly I agree link it to benefits is very telling. And confirms to me that it would be a terrible idea because of people's attitudes towards the poor.

What I find worrying is that some people clearly believe that only poor people abuse their children. It just proves that being poor leaves you open to all sorts of accusations based purely on your financial situation and being rich automatically protects you from same.

Fine, just let people churn out child after child then

Why aren't people expected to take responsibility for their actions anymore?

Fine, just let people churn out child after child then

I don't want people to do that, but punishing the child isn't the answer.

Many of these women dont know HOW to be a mother, being victims of the care system and childhood abuse themselves.

Perhaps we should get all kids in care sterilised on the basis that they will probably churn out more of the same

The child wouldn't be punished if its conception was prevented.

My mother should not have had children - severe personality disorder - and I grew up in care and it was no fun I can tell you. I haven't gone on to churn out one after another. I have two and am able to raise them well.

Some people just shouldn't have children. It's a biological urge that can have devastating consequences for the offspring who are caught up in those urges.

I'm a victim of the care system, but my children are both raised well. I'm a damn good mother. I had the drive and motivation to make sure that I was nothing like my own 'mother'.

It can be done. We're not all helpless victims who are incapable of getting our stuff together you know People do have choices.

The child wouldn't be punished if its conception was prevented. but it would if you stopped benefits after it was born.
And consider a 3 child family with a good income until both parents were made redundant. People who come up with these easy solutions just don't think it through.

Some people just shouldn't have children and who decides? You, the Ministry of Eugenics? or the Daily Mail?

Then I'll reiterate......just let people churn out child after child then. Just attend to their mistakes for them and watch them continue.

The alternatives are unbearable in a liberal society, so all that can be done is for social services to keep clearing up the mess others leave behind.

You could also argue that neglectful/abusive parents should be allowed to kill their children. Why interfere with any natural urges? Just accept that some parents will do this and allow them this freedom. It happens to animals doesn't it?

Is there that much difference between deciding who is allowed to have children and deciding who is fit to keep their children and who has to have them removed from them at birth?

I really take issue with those posters who suggest that if the children get taken into care at birth and then adopted really young, no harm will be done. i can assure you - as the mother of a child born addicted, to birth parents who hadn't raised any of their other children - that this is absolutely not true. Neonatal addiction is a horrible, horrible thing - very drawn out and painful for the baby, and the lifelong effects can be catastrophic. Exposure to massive stress in utero, early loss of your birth mother, and adoption itself are significant traumas.

Just because there may be a queue of adoptive parents does NOT negate the damage done to the child.

Absolutely Devora children aren't puppies or kittens.

No difference at all as far as I'm concerned DonnaDishwater

As has been said, it is possible for a court to order that a woman be sterilised, in extreme circumstances. It happened quite recently.

Donna - there's a big difference. A compulsory operation - that's horrific.
And I can just imagine ethnic minorities being targetted, as well as the poor and the disabled.