Would it be immoral to secretly sterilise a person?

[Globaluser]

A person you feel doesn’t deserve to have kids? A person who’s children are already in care? Would you, if you could?

So, in a nutshell:
Does anyone feel they could take away the right to have a baby from anyone who could potentially be a danger to a child?

Yabu - yes
Yanbu - no

FYI I’m asking because a friend thinks its wrong to make such a big decision on behalf of a person.

YABU.

It's not so much just the sterilisation that would make me feel uneasy (I can think of many high profile monsters who should not have been able to have children) more the fact, where does it stop? Who decides what is judged as good enough?

So it's a road we shouldn't go down, regardless of the reason.

I might feel compelled to agree with you on a case by case basis in theory but it's a very slippery slope and ultimately, no, it's no one else's choice to make. Who would decide and where would it end?

Yes I think it’s immoral. Instead of sterilising people, we could support people who are in such a dreadful position. Very rarely do people lose their children because they are sadistic abusers. Usually they are people who have had horrible lives, trauma and poor parenting experiences themselves. I’m not saying just let them keep kids when there has been harm but we can do a whole lot better to try to change the trajectory.

I think I got my YABU/YANBU mixed up. I couldn't and wouldn't sterilise someone secretly.

Feels like a Nazi thing to do, slippery slope

People have bodily autonomy. So no. Plus pretty much every time anyone has done this it's been at the least sexist and normally racist.

@Feelingbad2

Feels like a Nazi thing to do, slippery slope

Normally I'd say this was Godwin's Law. But since it was actually the Nazis, it isn't.

Who decides?

It isn't hypothetical either, it would absolutely be a used by those with ulterior motives - www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5102981

And to do it secretly? Bloody hell. It reminds me of that episode of Call the Midwife where a woman (played by Little Mo from Eastenders) had been sterilised without her knowledge while she was a patient at an asylum.

Yes it’s immoral. The thing is whilst it might be easy to say that...I dunno, hitler probably wouldn’t have made a good dad or Fred west being sterilised would have been a good thing...it’s much harder to find where the line is where you should not do it. So therefore it shouldn’t be done, ever.

In 99.9% or the cases I would say it is immoral to sterilize someone without their fully informed consent or to even give them birth control. There are a very small number of cases of developmental disabilities where it is unclear if the individual is truly capable of consenting to sexual activity as we currently understand consent, possesses enough ability to socialize in mixed sex environments and has a sex drive, and would face real distress at a resulting pregnancy. I really feel for the guardians of these individuals because there is no clear answer here.

No, just no. You need informed consent.
During my ODP (theatre nurse training), one of my fellow students asked if she could clip the toe nails of a patient who was under GA. She was told no.... you need consent. Sterilising someone without their consent... a massive no. How could you do it secretly?

I was wondering how you could secretly sanitise someone…

Disappointing thread!

I agree you should be able to but unworkable in practice.

If you're genuinely interested you could have a look at the Pause project and debates around the ethics of that

The Nazis did this.
Abhorrent idea.

Of course it's absolutely immoral. And everyone would have different opinions on who does and doesn't deserve children. But either way, an invasive surgical procedure would have to take place without that person's consent. And I presume to conduct this secretly you would have to drug them, again without their consent. It's wrong on so many levels.

Who made you the ultimate judge? What happens when someone else who, like you, views themselves as a good person, takes a different view about who to sterilise?

You're not god, or the embodiment of justice, you're a wannabe vigilante.

Should sterilisation be an option available to the state is a different but very thorny question. The history of it happening hasn't been good.

Nope. The nazis did this and I can't imagine any situation where it's the only/best option.

This was debated about my mother. All of her children had been removed from her at the time. I believe that sterilisation was one option; and forced birth control was another - the injection or coil, if I remember rightly, but I was quite young.

It didn’t happen. There has to be consent. It’s a slippery slope otherwise.

It’s a shame, from a personal point of view, because it meant that I ended up with many more siblings who went through what I did; and I tried so hard to stop that from happening. But I do understand the complexities in the decision, and I wouldn’t want to be the person responsible for making that decision for anyone.

Also your voting options are the opposite way around from the wording of your post, so the votes will be meaningless.

Doesn't bode well for your career as queen of crystal clear moral thinking.

Totally immoral

In America drug addicts are paif to go on long term birth control, including sterilization

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

wlos.com/news/local/north-carolina-woman-pays-addicts-for-long-birth-control-or-sterilization

Paid*

the Nazis were not the first to sterilize people who were considered unsuitable parents or who had what was considered bad genetics
Being a single mother
being Black or a minority
being a child of a single parent
being unable to read
having a health condition or being disabled especially if they had a mental health issue or learning disability
criminal record
ad infinitum
Where & when?
USA up to late 1960's
Scandinavia
UK
& many other places around the world except until the 1930's & the Nazis came in -Germany
Do I think long term birth control (NOT permanent) possibly under very set circumstances - but than I worked with abused children & have actually seen what can actually happen, not a theoretical, when a mother just has child after child & the children land up permanently emotionally damaged -

Of course it’s immoral. You can’t do something to someone else’s body without their knowledge. That is creepy.
You need more faith in the system that removes children from unsafe parents.