To say we should sterilise people with repeated child neglect or abuse cases?

[BeHardyGoldPeer]

If you’ve failed multiple children, shouldn’t society step in to prevent further harm?

2025 and people supporting eugenics is just….

Actually, I said “people,” not women specifically, so I’m not sure where you got that impression. Also, for the record, I am a woman. It seems like you’ve jumped to conclusions here without reading the post properly.

A lot of them just do it because they are sadistic little fuckers. They’ll abuse anyone weaker than themselves (I agree they can’t change)

Well yes that’s the other type. The ones who don’t care who or what age just as long as they can be the bigger more powerful person. They like you say also won’t change.

Also how do you do it? Physically hold people down and forcibly operate on them against their will?

Christ, we really are only ever a few steps away from living in a fascist state, which it seems lots of people would cheerfully welcome.

I agree with the sentiment. There are some people who should never ever have the ability to have children or access to them.

I wouldn’t want any system to have that kind of power though. So I don’t agree.

Google 'China'.

FFS utterly horrifying.

Another day, another batshit thread on MN.

When you realise some of the horrific things institutions have done to people probably with Gov sign off, I'd never in a million years want them to have that power either. It would be terribly abused, it would be misused.

If there was some way to incentivise men and women to do it in these cases, as distasteful as I know it would be, I could consider that. Some payment for example. It feels horrible but I could potentially be ok with that.

We're more at risk of abortion being inaccessible tbh and then we're even more fucked and so are all those unwanted kids that will result.

It's a bit like saying that every person with libido is a rapist.

Funnily enough I'm not worried about a child abuser/child sex offenders future fertility.
My point is there are ways of stopping them having children that are not as final as sterilisation.
Personally I would happily castrate the lot of them.

But it is final. That was the point I was making.

(I don’t see why forcibly removing a human’s fertility should be part of anybody’s punishment for a crime but if you support forcibly removing people’s genitals of course we will have a different view.)

So short-sighted. It's fine until they get it wrong, conviction is overturned, change the rules...

The men who impregnate these unfortunate women also need to be sterilised. Arguably they're more of a problem because one feckless man can impregnate multiple women.

I can’t abide this train of thought that if someone is mentally unstable/causing harm to themselves or others it is acceptable to medically fuck around with their physical bodies. It is eugenics. And yes it’s horrendously shit that children will keep being born on drugs or into families where the likelihood of removal is high due to abuse/neglect. But medicine doesn’t exist to play god, nor does it fix these issues. What will happen is that a woman is likely to go into hiding when pregnant, putting herself and the baby at huge risk of birth related complications or death. Offering sterilisation to someone who’s mentally incapacitated is completely unethical as they do not have full capacity to make that decision. For women who are in no position to have a baby, the best compromise is to offer and support them in having a long term contraceptive option. Shame there isn’t anything the same to offer men.

Of course we should, especially the drains on society who keep having babies and keep having them taken away.
It's not going to happen though..

Also why is it in many child abuse/murder cases the woman is pregnant again, with the new partners baby.
They couldn't handle the ones they had.
They either have abortions or the baby is taken into care, another headache.

I couldn't support forced sterilisation, no. It would be against the Human Rights Act and rightly so. Partly because people can turn their lives around. But I do think the rights of children should be much more central. There used to be a charity in America which would offer Long Acting Reversible Contraception to addicts and other mothers who'd had multiple children removed due to child protection issues. I remember hearing a podcast where it was explained these mothers were not in control of their bodies enough to actually choose to have children, they were just getting pregnant by accident. They spoke to one set of adoptive parents who had adopted 12 or so consecutive children from a mother - it might have even been this couple that founded the charity. And of course the children being removed caused immense suffering to the biological mothers as well as the babies. They were grateful for the charity helping them in this way. The charity got a huge amount of pushback both in the US and when they tried to start up in the UK, and it wasn't even permanent sterilisation.

Yes. You can be banned from keeping animals if you abuse them - for life, if it's a serious enough case. Do children matter less?

I think it should be available as an option. If society is going to have to pick up the pieces then I think it should be able to say it’s enough.

If such a thing did happen I would hope they had concrete evidence of abuse and not just what could be malicious false accusations or revenge or you'd have a lot of jealous ex's or neighbours with their nose put out threatening to ruin peoples lives.

How about- agree to store a bunch eggs, at public expense and save them til lady turns 50. If during the years, she turns life around, “proves” she can safely carry & birth a child, & care - public pays her IVF for max 2 children. If she returns to be an abuser, child taken & eggs in the bin.

Much cheaper in long run.

Pedos. Rapists. Sterilize. Or castes, burn their eyes out.

I'd add in neglectful fathers who won't pay child support. If they refuse they should be sterilised.

I believe those who abuse/murder children should be imprisoned for life, but not forcefully sterilised.

As PP's have asked, where would the line be drawn? Would parents who expose their children to too much screen time, or give them poor diets also be punished in this manner? Or what about those who oppose the government's narrative? Or perhaps it would be applied to anyone on a low income, that has to rely on food banks? 'If you can't afford 'em, don't 'av 'em' is often said on MN, without any further thought to people's change in circumstances.