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

Would it be immoral to secretly sterilise a person?

182 replies

Globaluser · 29/05/2021 20:39

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.

OP posts:
Original poster
Globaluser · 29/05/2021 22:17

Hmmm a unfit person... is a FUCKING CHILD ABUSER!!!

Unless, of course, it’s all of a sudden compared to someone of a different race.... WOW!!

OP posts:
DaisyFeather · 29/05/2021 22:19

It’s because if you use it for one group, you get other people bending the rules and situations like this:

It was only last year this was in the news www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/unwanted-hysterectomy-allegations-ice-georgia-immigration

FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop · 29/05/2021 22:20

YABU,

It's it anyone's right to play God like that with someone else's body

XenoBitch · 29/05/2021 22:20

@Globaluser

Well, people don’t have children taken off them for not being abusive and neglectful, do they? 🧐

Urgh, I think it’s crazy how anyone can think that a child’s life/happiness is less important than a persons right to have more children.
Thats pretty damn heartbreaking is that!

People that are abusive or neglectful need help. I know a few women through my own mental health journey that had kids taken from them. They were not abusive, and were not intentionally neglectful... they were just unwell. Their kids stayed with family or a foster family. Several of these women now have their children back. To forcible sterilise them is just unthinkable.

You simply can not force a medical procedure on a person, and to do so in secret implies there is a level of deception there to get them to agree to anaesthetic .
The only time you can treat someone without consent is if they are out of it (an emergency), or under a Mental Health Act section.

SinkGirl · 29/05/2021 22:20

So who would decide that they’re unfit to have children? What would be the criteria? Are those criteria subjective?

You do realise that this little thought experiment is reality for some women - forced sterilisation due to race, immigration status, disability...

Of course it’s immoral. Operating on another human being and removing their bodily autonomy because you think that’s deserved? I can’t believe anyone would think that’s reasonable. But your voting options are confusing.

SinkGirl · 29/05/2021 22:22

So disingenuous. I was the victim of abuse as a child and I still wouldn’t condone this.

grapewine · 29/05/2021 22:23

Operating on another human being and removing their bodily autonomy because you think that’s deserved? I can’t believe anyone would think that’s reasonable.

This is it in a nutshell.

Freecuthbert · 29/05/2021 22:27

@Globaluser

Hmmm a unfit person... is a FUCKING CHILD ABUSER!!!

Unless, of course, it’s all of a sudden compared to someone of a different race.... WOW!!

You said someone who doesn't deserve to have kids, and then followed it up with someone who has kids in care which I presumed to be an example. But even so, many people who were not abusive have kids in the care system and you suggesting otherwise is utter ignorance. Thank god you don't have the power to determine who gets secretly sterilised. Hmm
DeathByWalkies · 29/05/2021 22:27

Secretly - never - there should either be consent or a court process (Court of Protection, in most cases).

But - where a woman is having pregnancies pretty much back-to-back, babies all removed at birth and taken into care (and likely permanently damaged by exposure to drugs or alcohol in utero)... encouragement, including by a modest financial payment, to have a LARC is morally the lesser of two evils.

Those who oppose encouraging those who have demonstrably failed as parents to take a LARC rarely seem to consider the lifelong effects on the children (e.g. FASD) and the moral implications of that. Producing lots of permanently damaged children that the mother will never raise is in no one's best interests.

If the woman later gets her life back on track, gets clean, removes herself from any abusive relationships, and maintains a certain level of stability then the LARC can be removed.

PlanDeRaccordement · 29/05/2021 22:27

I’m just stunned that as of now, 38% agree with secretly sterilising a person, which is exactly what the Nazis did.

BlackAmericanoNoSugar · 29/05/2021 22:28

The thing with sweeping laws and practices is that they are often brought in with the best of intentions but the better the intentions sometimes the more the potential for use with bad intentions is over looked. So making it extremely difficult to force someone to undergo any medical treatment might seem as though it's a waste of money, court time and doctors' time but it's the best way to ensure people's autonomy over their own bodies.

For example in some states in the US they brought in a law that allows unborn babies to be taken into consideration when the pregnant woman has been either killed or injured to the extent that she looses the baby. It was intended for cases where a pregnant woman was involved in a car accident because of someone else's dangerous driving or where a pregnant woman was beaten/attacked. I think it has come to be used as a way to criminalise pregnant women for engaging in risky behaviour during pregnancy. eg this woman was charged for the death of her unborn baby when somebody else shot her. The claim was that she should have removed herself from the argument to protect her baby. Six months later they dropped the charges. But if you have a law that allows you to forcibly sterilise someone and then six months later the law decides that they didn't need to be sterilised, well, they're still sterile, it's too late.

Freecuthbert · 29/05/2021 22:29

@PlanDeRaccordement

I’m just stunned that as of now, 38% agree with secretly sterilising a person, which is exactly what the Nazis did.
I believe this is because the OP's title and post don't line up so it's not actually clear how people should vote.
Original poster
Globaluser · 29/05/2021 22:29

@SinkGirl I actually don’t know what to say to that. I’m sorry that happened to you. And you’re much more of a bigger person than me. I’m actually not a victim of abuse, but still, I obviously have very little tolerance.

OP posts:
CandyLeBonBon · 29/05/2021 22:29

@Globaluser

Hmmm a unfit person... is a FUCKING CHILD ABUSER!!!

Unless, of course, it’s all of a sudden compared to someone of a different race.... WOW!!

Oh pack it up op. I was also abused as a child. Much as I loathe my abuser I can absolutely see how such a rule would be abused.

It's like euthanasia- it's too open for abuse, because people will, can and have bent rules.

Lobotomy was used to cure lesbianism and 'hysteria' in women against their will. That's now considered barbaric.

So no. In spite of the fact that you MIGHT be right about this individual, there are too many obstacles that would make this workable as an overall policy.

HTH.

Puntastic · 29/05/2021 22:30

I'm confused on the voting. You said:

'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'

But your question seems like it's the other way around- you think it'd be OK to do it, so YABU should mean it's wrong, not that it's right. Clarification please. What does YABU signify here?

PlanDeRaccordement · 29/05/2021 22:30

@Freecuthbert
OP should edit one or other then, because we can change our votes.

anothernewtop · 29/05/2021 22:31

@Twoforthree

I was wondering how you could secretly sanitise someone…

Disappointing thread!

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

Me too!!

Covid has affected my brain Grin

CandyLeBonBon · 29/05/2021 22:32

Sorry 'workable' should've read 'unworkable'

Bourbonic · 29/05/2021 22:32

Of course it isn't a justifiable thing to do. Nobody is well placed enough to accurately predict how capable somebody will be of being a good parent throughout the entirety of their fertile years.

BumbleFlump · 29/05/2021 22:33

How could you do this secretly?

I think the only circumstances where this should be a possibility is when a mum who is drinking heavily or using drugs keeps having kids - Those kids have to live with the effects for their whole lives, it’s heartbreaking

phoenixrosehere · 29/05/2021 22:34

It's not fucked up to compare what you're suggesting to what the Nazis did, they literally steralized people deemed unfit. It is exactly the same. The only difference is what counts as an unfit person.

Absolutely. Nazis also weren’t the only ones. They got the idea from government bodies that did forced sterilisations to Indigenous people and minorities without their knowledge. The governments’ way of trying to “control” such groups.

AntiSocialDistancer · 29/05/2021 22:35

@lottiegarbanzo

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.

Yes the.voting is an odd set up.
Puntastic · 29/05/2021 22:35

@PlanDeRaccordement

I’m just stunned that as of now, 38% agree with secretly sterilising a person, which is exactly what the Nazis did.
Or they've read it wrongly. I can't work out from the OP which option to pick if I disagree with the OP's stance. The definitions given seen contradictory to the post.
ThreeLocusts · 29/05/2021 22:36

Jeeez - of course it is wrong to have someone secretly sterilized. How is there a question about that? Even if cases were imaginable where sterilization might be for the good, who do you imagine could be trusted to make that decision?

As others has said, forced sterilization has been going on throughout the twentieth century - and its targets were always racial minorities and/or the poor and marginalized. While the decisions were invariably taken by white males. There is no way to guard against these iniquitous outcomes. So no, not defensible.

caringcarer · 29/05/2021 22:36

I have a vague recollection of this actually happening to 'submormal' woman in US who were in orphanage. They had very low IQ and so it was decided they should not have children as would not be able to care for them. I sure i.havr not dreamed this up but can't recall the study about it.