Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
MimiDaisy11 · 29/05/2021 22:39

It's like the debate for or against the death penalty. Most people would be happy if rapists and paedophiles dropped dead, but one of the main reasons to be against the death penalty is because of how it's implemented and that due to various bias and prejudices people aren't treated equally. It's the same with sterilisation. Obviously it's not good if irresponsible people have children, but if you had a sterilisation programme it would end up being used disproportionally on poor people over rich people etc.

Original poster
Globaluser · 29/05/2021 22:39

Yeah sorry, the voting makes no sense. I don’t know what I did there 😐

OP posts:
CandyLeBonBon · 29/05/2021 22:40

@BumbleFlump

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

Even then, consent must be involved.
CandyLeBonBon · 29/05/2021 22:42

@caringcarer

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.
Courts were involved I believe. Who took the time to consider the case.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision based on a blanket law.

toocold54 · 29/05/2021 22:45

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.

One of my neighbours would literally have another baby every time one got too old just to abuse it. He should have been sterilised 100% although it shouldn’t be a secret.

covilha · 29/05/2021 22:45

I think the Nazis may have tried this, and history tells us how that worked out

Patapouf · 29/05/2021 22:47

Eurrrgh morally very wrong indeed. Google eugenics

That said, there are certainly people who never ever should have been able to have children (for the sake of those children). But I do not want to live in a society where the state gets to make that decision.

Original poster
Globaluser · 29/05/2021 22:50

Someone once told me about a woman beating her baby to death.
I don’t know what happened to her but let’s just say she convinced the court she didn’t mean to kill the baby and therefore only got 5 years for manslaugher.
This woman upon her release is asked to give consent to have her tubes cut to prevent any further babies. She refuses. Are you all trying to say that it wouldn’t be immoral for this woman to bring another child into this world? But sterilising her would be...?

OP posts:
grapewine · 29/05/2021 22:51

One of my neighbours would literally have another baby every time one got too old just to abuse it.

There really are some reprehensible, fucking disgusting people in the world!

mog27 · 29/05/2021 22:53

I think it depends. Having worked with sex offenders I'd go one step further and castrate them because they cannot ever learn to control their urges and are a risk to society forever.

Having said that I've also seen people completely turn their life around after having their children removed. Sometimes you need to hit rock bottom to realise what you are capable of.

I also wouldn't trust they system to make the correct decision. They've made mistakes in the past and don't always judge on facts and evidence.

TomBradysLeftKneecap · 29/05/2021 22:53

Not secretly, no. However, I find this debate endlessly fascinating as my friends just adopted their third child from the same mother (who had already had her first three adopted out) and every single child has issues related to the drug exposure while pregnant. I find it kind of insane at this point that there's nothing we can do to stop the babies coming because the children are the ones who suffer and the adoptive parents are the ones who have to take up the slack.

And my friends have offered to pay for it but the agency refused. This isn't UK by the way.

lebigface · 29/05/2021 22:53

Absolutely not, it’s completely unethical.

Freecuthbert · 29/05/2021 22:55

@Globaluser

Someone once told me about a woman beating her baby to death. I don’t know what happened to her but let’s just say she convinced the court she didn’t mean to kill the baby and therefore only got 5 years for manslaugher. This woman upon her release is asked to give consent to have her tubes cut to prevent any further babies. She refuses. Are you all trying to say that it wouldn’t be immoral for this woman to bring another child into this world? But sterilising her would be...?
Stop twisting people's words. Of course it would be immoral for her to forcibly sterilised. It would also be immoral for her to have another baby and murder it.
NameyNameyNameChangey · 29/05/2021 22:55

Absolutely not.
While I think some people shouldn't have children- I would never support the state removing rights and autonomy from anyone. If you allow the government to remove rights from one group of people, you risk them removing them- or other rights- from you. Needs to be a hard and resounding no.

XenoBitch · 29/05/2021 22:55

@Globaluser

Someone once told me about a woman beating her baby to death. I don’t know what happened to her but let’s just say she convinced the court she didn’t mean to kill the baby and therefore only got 5 years for manslaugher. This woman upon her release is asked to give consent to have her tubes cut to prevent any further babies. She refuses. Are you all trying to say that it wouldn’t be immoral for this woman to bring another child into this world? But sterilising her would be...?
It sounds like there was some mental health issues going on there for starters, especially if her sentence was manslaughter. Ever heard of post partum psychosis? She is entitled to refuse sterilisation surgery. Practically speaking, how would you propose it go ahead if she refuses? Strap her down? All there is is encouragement... and taking any subsequent children away.
NameyNameyNameChangey · 29/05/2021 22:56

@Globaluser

Someone once told me about a woman beating her baby to death. I don’t know what happened to her but let’s just say she convinced the court she didn’t mean to kill the baby and therefore only got 5 years for manslaugher. This woman upon her release is asked to give consent to have her tubes cut to prevent any further babies. She refuses. Are you all trying to say that it wouldn’t be immoral for this woman to bring another child into this world? But sterilising her would be...?
It wouldn't be immoral for her to have another baby. On the face of it, I would argue it would be immoral for social services to allow her to retain custody, however.
OrangeRug · 29/05/2021 22:57

As much as I fantasise about my next door neighbour being forcibly sterilised, this could never be morally acceptable because it removes bodily autonomy.

Iminaglasscaseofemotion · 29/05/2021 22:57

I know quite a few people who should be sterilised to be honest.

toocold54 · 29/05/2021 23:00

I find it kind of insane at this point that there's nothing we can do to stop the babies coming because the children are the ones who suffer and the adoptive parents are the ones who have to take up the slack.

I completely agree.
I’m not sure why so many people are more concerned with the parents rather than the innocent children.

PlanDeRaccordement · 29/05/2021 23:00

@Globaluser

Someone once told me about a woman beating her baby to death. I don’t know what happened to her but let’s just say she convinced the court she didn’t mean to kill the baby and therefore only got 5 years for manslaugher. This woman upon her release is asked to give consent to have her tubes cut to prevent any further babies. She refuses. Are you all trying to say that it wouldn’t be immoral for this woman to bring another child into this world? But sterilising her would be...?
I am saying it would be immoral to sterilise her. If she was convicted of manslaughter, then it was not murder. Manslaughter means diminished responsibility such as post-partum psychosis and with treatment unlikely a future baby would also be accidentally killed. It it wouldn’t be “her” convincing the court she didn’t mean to kill her baby, it would be a panel of at least three doctors. Or if a different reason, three experts to comment of whether a reasonable person could make same mistake. If for example, she misread dosage on some medicine and accidentally poisoned baby, etc. Otherwise it’s murder.
CandyLeBonBon · 29/05/2021 23:02

@toocold54

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.

One of my neighbours would literally have another baby every time one got too old just to abuse it. He should have been sterilised 100% although it shouldn’t be a secret.

And if you have a blanket rule that allows enforced sterilisation, what measures will you put in place to ensure it doesn't get abused?
NameyNameyNameChangey · 29/05/2021 23:03

@toocold54

I find it kind of insane at this point that there's nothing we can do to stop the babies coming because the children are the ones who suffer and the adoptive parents are the ones who have to take up the slack.

I completely agree.
I’m not sure why so many people are more concerned with the parents rather than the innocent children.

You can be concerned with both. I agree plenty of people shouldn't have children. And should consider sterilisation. I disagree they should be forced by the state. (or anyone else)
TheLastLotus · 29/05/2021 23:03

I don't think the idea of forced sterilisation is immoral but the slippery slope it leads to is simply unacceptable. Also of course it can't be done secretly!
What COULD be done is a monetary incentive given to elicit consent, but this won't be popular with the public.

PlanDeRaccordement · 29/05/2021 23:04

You know they debated sterilising every woman that tested positive for HIV during the AIDS crisis. This was before treatment for it, so it was a death sentence at the time. But while having HIV but before it developed into AIDS, many women had babies born with AIDS. These children had a life expectancy of around 7yrs. Just old enough to realise fully the life they are going to miss out on.

Still immoral to sterilise someone forcibly or secretly.

CandyLeBonBon · 29/05/2021 23:04

@Globaluser

Someone once told me about a woman beating her baby to death. I don’t know what happened to her but let’s just say she convinced the court she didn’t mean to kill the baby and therefore only got 5 years for manslaugher. This woman upon her release is asked to give consent to have her tubes cut to prevent any further babies. She refuses. Are you all trying to say that it wouldn’t be immoral for this woman to bring another child into this world? But sterilising her would be...?
You clearly know a lot of people with questionable morals op. One would almost think you aren't genuine in your concern, as every time some raises a valid concern, you regale us with another horror story from your personal collection.