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.

@CindyTrevaskis

Churchill was into eugenics. He believed that you should sterilise those with mental health issues. If he had gotten his was I would not be here, and my son certainly wouldn’t be.

Of course you cannot sterilise anyone. You don’t get to choose where the line is.

Interesting. He suffered appalling depression. Did he mean himself?

Were it not for an incompetent, abusive, parental monster deciding to get pregnant and bring me into the world..my respective children would not be here now.
They are fine human beings, I can tell you, and society would be all the poorer without them. None of us have the right to judge.

No. But, i know a young woman who has had 5 babies all of whom are in care. Two of the dc have asd, another has a congenital heart condition. She has mild learning difficulties, and has been with her dp since she was 13, they are both drug addicts and he appears to have asd and adhd (undiganosed). They love each other and are likely to stay together long term, and are highly likely to have lots more babies. They have been given every possible support to sort out their lives and give up drugs, but even if they do he poses a possible risk to children so they will never be allowed to take care of them. I don't want sterilization forced on either of them, but i would love if one or both of them could be persuaded into it.

@SnarkyBag don't be ridiculous. A child born to 2 parents with Downs does not have a 30-50 per cent chance of developing it, it's 75 per cent plus.

The other thing is that a child being brought up by 2 parents with significant LDs who cannot even be relied upon to meet that child's basic needs? That is grossly unfair to the child, whether he/she is neurotypical or not.

@Cowbells I’m not really sure what his cut off point was, but much like Hitler he believed in a ‘strong British race’ which didn’t include other races or those with mental illnesses. The Churchill Society has this:

“Churchill saw what were then known as the “feeble-minded” and the “insane” as a threat to the prosperity, vigour and virility of British society.

The phrase “feeble-minded” was to be defined as part of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913, of which Churchill had been one of the early drafters. The Act defined four grades of “Mental Defective” who could be confined for life, whose symptoms had to be present “from birth or from an early age.” “Idiots” were defined as people “so deeply defective in mind as to be unable to guard against common physical dangers.” “Imbeciles” were not idiots, but were “incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so.” The “feeble-minded” were neither idiots nor imbeciles, but, if adults, their condition was “so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or the protection of others.” If children of school age, their condition was “so pronounced that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be personally incapable of receiving proper benefit from instruction in ordinary schools.” “Moral defectives” were people who, from an early age, displayed “some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment had little or no effect.”[1]”

I know this is derailing but he was a horrific man when you go delving into him, he had terrible beliefs. It’s very odd that we uphold him as the ‘Greatest Briton’.

I know this is derailing but he was a horrific man when you go delving into him, he had terrible beliefs. It’s very odd that we uphold him as the ‘Greatest Briton’.

Roald Dahl was an anti-Semite, wasn't he? He was still an excellent children's author (although some of his writing I wouldn't consider suitable for children any longer, tbh). Ultimately, all people are products of the time in which they live, the people who shape them and their experiences; very few historical figures would live up to modern-day standards in terms of what they believed, nor would 100% of their actions be viewed favourably.

People voted him the greatest Briton because of his contribution during wartime. I'd argue there were many more deserving candidates, but he clearly had a great deal of influence over the course of our history, largely for the positive. He may not have been a good man, but he was a great one (defined here as: of ability, considerably above average).

I had a break down after years of domestic abuse. My children were removed.

Should I be sterilised? What if the sterilisation you would like me forced into went wrong and I suffered complications? What about my abuser who helped drive me toward breakdown? Should he be sterilised too? Wha about the Dr who failed to notice that I was reacting so badly to the medication I’d prescribed? Or the local authority who KNEW I needed help but just sat by until I reached crisis point? I could go on (oh and I also have a formal apology snd comprnsation for the utterly disgusting way the local authority handled the whole situation)

Should I be sterilised?