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.

here's someone here

A man too, shock horror.

Ethnic minorities? Eh, how do you work that one out?

I think people are just getting paranoid.

hiddenhome looking at the state of the world I could make a case for sterilising religious people. I could point to the various cases of parents torturing children because they were possessed by devils, praying instead of taking kids to the doctor, killing other religious people for being the wrong religion and so on.

I would oppose that, but if you really think that sterilising people is a good idea then be prepared for people other than me having a different list of undesirables.

And you know we haven't exhausted all the alternatives yet. Have you considered that education might be a better long term solution? I know it's a long shot and that cutting bits out of people is more satisfying, but maybe it's worth considering.

There's plenty of fear/hatred about certain ethnic minorities breeding at a greater rate than white British and so taking over the country. It wouldn't take long for someone to suggest a quota.

Nothing new to add but I agree with every word Bogeyface and others have written.

We are a civilised society. We can't do this, we can only help to minimise the consequences for the children.

And people ask how Nazism took hold in interwar Germany.

I heartily recommend this BTW, to those of you wondering about slippery slopes.

Some genuinely depressing views on this thread.

The last few years (Tory rule) have certainly been pretty revealing. It doesn't take much for people to come out of the woodwork and support all kinds of extreme rightwing views, such as this one.

Please tell me it's 'just' DM readers....

DonnaDishwater

One is a medical procedure performed against one's will, and one isn't.

Hidden You have sort have answered your own argument though.

You were a victim of inadequate parenting and ended up in the care system. You are good mother to 2 children. You are able and willing to put their needs before your own. You care for them above all else.

If every woman like your mother had been sterilised then women such as you, good sensible women capable of mothering (in the true sense) children, would not exist.

What does need to be done is a total overhaul of the care system, proper support and help for foster carers and carees and a speeding up of the adoption system for those children who can be placed. Much of the time in adoption proceedings is bureaucracy, so the safety aspect need not be affected.

Hidden,

That article you linked to is not forced sterilisation at all.

In that case nobody but nobody opposed it,the man himself did not want any more children but he was legally not able to consent to the op and to old for a parent to consent for him,that's why it went to court

Hiddenhome you talk sense women shouldn't be clumped in the same boxes because of X YZ ,

And I can just imagine ethnic minorities being targetted, as well as the poor and the disabled.

what no of course these people will not be targetted well not anymore we are talking about women who refuse to care for their children , i was poor and disabled I managed just fine

Where I stay they are screaming out for foster carers

but there is no shortage of couples hoping to adopt a new baby

Mrsjay my post last night was saying, it is not a zero sum game. I feel most sorry for the children and I'd imagine the mother is probably pretty unpleasant but it does occur to me to wonder how she got that way. I can spare a bit of compassion for her too.

I just find it ironic that people are feeling sorry for the tiny mites taken into care partially because they risk sustaining long term emotional damage , but then when some people who are victims of the system start to display this undesirable behaviour as women, suddenly it's all forced operations and they're the scum of the earth.

Obviously lots of people who go through traumatic circumstances keep their shit together and work out just fine. But some don't. Some aren't as strong, or have poorer impulse control, or whatever. I don't mean we should let them do whatever they want, but I just find the tone of punishing hatred depressing.

oh revolting I am sorry i read it al wrong

Also Mrsjay come on, have you not seen ATOS? People in govt have already suggested denying women benefits if they have too many children. There are awful cases of people being hounded to death by the system already. I can totally imagine a programme whereby getting enough money for your children to eat was dependent on getting sterilised. People on this thread already suggested it!

That's okay :) I think we are prob on the same side really!

Aye i just read your other post the wrong way and saw red and then ranted sorry i swore at you, ANYWAY, I really don't know what the solution is denying women money is worse the children they have will not eat properly, I have seen children neglected because their parents have too many children but i have also seen children neglected when they were an only or one of 2, it is heartbreaking

There is an enormous difference between taking a woman's born, neglected children and forcing sterilisation.

Children have rights and their right not to be neglected trumps her right to keep them.

If you are forcing sterilisation you have to decide on whose behalf.

If it is on behalf of her unconceived children then you are saying that unconceived children have rights? So do conceived children have rights too? They must do. It's ridiculous otherwise. Well - right number 1 is the right to life. So abortion is now illegal.

Assuming people don't like that idea - how about on behalf of the state - why should we all have to pay for this woman's 9th,10th,11th etc child? Excellent! Less tax for all! But these kids will be taken t birth and middle class couples will fight over who gets the chance to take them to Tumble Tots and music class before privately educating them. They are not expensive.

Expensive children are the ones with illnesses and disabilities. In the Uk a disabled child has no rights up to birth. (You can terminate at any point.) If we are saying that a woman has no reproduction rights if to do so is expensive for the state what do you think will happen when at the 20 week ultrasound a severe and expensive abnormality is spotted?

Please forgive me I haven't read the entire thread, I just wondered if there was an alternative to sterilisation such as regular depo contraceptive? Monitored until said mother has proven their ability to turn things around? Perhaps it wouldn't work for everyone but if someone is convicted of neglect, the priority should be rehabilitation. at least this isn't a final procedure but an opportunity to ensure contraception to some degree? Or am I completely missing the point?

but there is no shortage of couples hoping to adopt a new baby

Actually, it does very much depend on what needs the baby has, and the background issues. There is a massive shortage of people willing to adopt a baby who has been exposed to a large amount of alcohol and/or drugs in utero, or where both birth parents sadly have serious mental health conditions which have a genetic component to them, or significant learning difficulties which also may have a genetic component to them. Add to that babies who have disabilities.

I remember a small child I saw in a magazine which has profiles of children waiting for adoption in it. That child was a relinquished (voluntarily placed) baby who had a disability. That child was in that magazine aged 1....aged 2....aged 3. No family found. I've also seen babies under 1 with FAS, Downs Sydrome, a beautiful healthy baby where both parents had Scizophrenia...all waiting, their profiles sent out nationwide trying to attract interest. For how long? Many will never find parents

And a LOT of waiting babies (aged 0-2) have these issues, especially alcohol in utero.

So it's really not so simple as to say, "oh the baby can be removed and adopted, and it all be fine". IF the baby finds parents, great. But then, even a baby adopted at a young age can go on to have very significant issues caused by their experiences/background. FASD for instance. Or on a lesser scale, I adopted my third child at 23 months, and he does have issues because of the moves to his foster carers, then especially the move to me, plus his early weeks of life. And maybe the environment in utero is a contributing factor, who knows.

But I am vehemently opposed to forced sterilisation. It's simply eugenics, and forcing someone to undergo a serious medical procedure which could go wrong, is a horrible violation of their body.

I agree with your DH although it should be done case by case. Perhaps the implant would be better to save money too.

The OP doesn't say anything about the mother being an alcoholic or drug user, I can't see anything to suggest that the baby wouldn't be healthy

Just because the OP didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. I would hope the OP wouldn't put all the details online

But this case aside, I was actually talking in general terms. It's not about one family, putting one baby up for adoption or sterilising one mother. It's about the birth mothers and the babies as a whole group. And on the whole, the concerns I mentionned are very common, so you have to take it into account when saying "oh it'll all be fine, because the babies will get adopted easily". It's not actually the case that there are lots of adopters for all babies, whatever is going on for one individual family