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?

I used to be against this but now I'm all for it. I've personally seen the heart break of the left behind children where their parents have gone on to have multiple children with new partners through drink and drugs.
Perpetuating the misery
I feel guilty being a parent to two wondering if I've doing my best giving them enough love etc.
How can these men and women happily go into have many more without thought to the ones left behind who don't even get a bday call.

Hadn't she heard of contraception. Nobody needs to.keep having babies today with all the contraception.
What a disgusting human being.

I think we learned in lockdown how quickly people are willing to start reporting on their neighbours for perceived infractions.

I believe there is a lot of frustration within society. Public services have gone to shit. Criminal elements run rife but good luck getting someone to investigate if you’re robbed, or getting cps to prosecute if you are raped.

Quality of life is going down thanks to col. We are fed a narrative on who is to blame and we squabble whilst the people at the top get richer.

I’d be surprised if over the next few decades we don’t slide into some form of “strong man” politics tbh.

The only way I might ever be in favour of this is in the most extreme cases, where women have either killed or been involved in the death of children, and have been sentenced to prison... even then it's a tough one.

It's more complicated than that though isn't it? This was a woman who had experienced trauma and abuse of all kinds pretty much from birth, she had severe MH issues and a learning difficulty (not disability) plus the almost inevitable addiction issues that come with the other she'd lived.

It seems like a good idea like many ideas with good intentions until it's out of Pandora's box and used for more than the intended reason.

As a child protection social worker I find this abhorrent. It is a complex area of work and the legalities and 'threshold' of the state intervening seem to remain outside the comprehension of a significant minority.

There has only been one parent in my 20 year career who has been assessed to be a danger to her children because of willful intent. The rest have had mental health issues (including fabricated and induced illness) learning disability, addiction as a result of their environment and personal circumstances, usually stemming from their childhood. I work really hard to keep children safe. I also work really hard with parents in circumstances to maintain a relationship in situations where it has been impossible to keep their children safe in their care. Most professionals involved, increasingly working overtime and using their own money to provide emergency food, bus fares etc as all funding has been cut.

I get it- the stuff reported in the press is the worst of the worst. Yet every day a lot of the success goes on unreported. Child death rates in the UK due to are child protection interventions have fallen significantly over the years and in comprasion to much of the world are very low. Yes, one child is too many, but it is unfortunately impossible to prevent every death and not all are known to services. This is where family , friends and wider society come in. Child protection is a societal responsibility and services have been cut to the bone.

Finally- if people really want things to be better for children and families, then they need to accept that funding and tax payers money must be targeted to early help, education, social care and ensuring our children are not growing in poverty to try and break the cycle. In the long term this will benefit us all but is less of a vote winner than pandering to pensioners, many of whom have had the advantage the best years of the welfare state.

Not everyone who is abused though does go on to be like this though.

And I'm a child of a drink and drug user that was violently abused and I'm still not for it.

It will come, and when it does, like assisted dying, everyone will be clamouring for it.

YANBU I’ve worked in prisons with child abusers and after they have completed their sentence they go on to have more kids.

I can only go by my experience which is men but they’re either dangerous and have low intelligence or dangerous and clever.

These men often have no homes or jobs when they leave prison and so they latch on to vulnerable women.

The easiest way for them to continue having a roof over their heads is to get her pregnant, making it harder for her to leave.

Chemical castration is such an easy fix which massively reduces the rape rate, as well as reduces the chances of getting someone pregnant.

Of course that doesn’t stop women getting pregnant from someone else but it massively reduces the amount of babies born to male abusers.

No they don't, some get the help they need, some just can't ever cope with life. Several of her babies were born following rapes, her trauma was ongoing and lifelong. She was on contraception on and off, but her life was more chaotic than anything most of us could comprehend and there was a lot of talk of her disengaging from services, who in my opinion did the bare minimum then closed her file. No way should any of those children have stayed with her, but it felt like as each one was born and then removed the circle of services around her would disappear until she was pregnant again.
She was only 31 last time I knew of her so it's possible she had other babies. It's just really sad that anyone in today's world lives that life.

These parents who are already violent and abusive aren’t going to be much worse because she can’t get pregnant.

What we do know is that abuse escalates during pregnancy/after birth, and the woman is less likely to leave because she has children with him.

He will also likely get access to his kids and so you have to choose between staying in an abusive relationship or leaving and potentially having your kids have unsupervised access.

Child sex offenders are mentally unwell but sterilisation is absolutely something I support.

Most of these men absolutely hate feeling the way they do and they would choose to be chemically castrated if given the choice.

Chemical castration isn’t harmful or permanent and if having it done means 1 less women or child being raped, then it’s a good thing.
It skdo means the man doesn’t live a life of guilt or depression or ends up in prison (the prisons are full of them which costs the government a lot).

I definitely think they need therapy etc too but I think that would go hand in hand with chemical castration.

But it's not your bodies, not your choices. Forced sterilisation?

After seeing the damage forced sterilisation has caused in other places, I would not want that here.

Long term contraception and support for chaotic parents, yes.

For pedophiles and rapists, whatever is effective to stop them reoffending.

How would it even be implemented?

The worst part is there is no consequence for women that continually have children that are removed. They have one removed, find a partner, get pregnant and the cycle continues ad finitum.

How about if after removal of a child you were admitted into a 12 month in patient rehab programme. You learn about domestic abuse, have therapy for your childhood and your child going into care, support to come off cigarettes, alcohol and drugs and get some help with education and housing.

It would be expensive but not as expensive as the care system and lifelong care for drug and alcohol exposed, traumatised children.

That was hitlers plan wasn't it?

I’m thinking this through. Would it be people where there have been care proceedings, which requires the civil standard of proof i.e. in the balance of probabilities, or criminal convictions i.e. beyond reasonable doubt?

You say “repeated” so would it count if there were several siblings affected, arising out of the same set of circumstances or would it be different circumstances years apart.

Would the age of the parent make a difference, say if all the incidents were when they were under e.g. 25?

Would the parent be able to avoid this if they were undertaking parenting courses or therapy?

Many people who are very poor parents and abuse children or neglect them experienced similar parenting themselves and in reality are abused children who have reached an age where they can reproduce. Many are disadvantaged and have a learning disability so I suppose this would find favour with those who support some sort of eugenics. Thus likely in the present climate to be supported by many.

How would it work? Would the court making the care orders on the children or sentencing in the criminal court make a sterilisation order? The subject would have to be forcibly detained and it would be necessary to find surgeons willing to perform the procedures on subjects who did not consent. If not accompanied by a prison sentence then the police would have to arrest the person, take them to the clinic/ hospital and detain them there.

For women, what do you suggest? A fallopian tube tie?

I believe that in the Netherlands women can be required to have contraception for a period but presumably forcing a woman to have a depot injection against her will wouldn’t meet your criteria of permanency but would you permit that as an alternative? Of course there would be problems if she didn’t turn up for follow up injections, but presumably you’d then arrest her and sterilise her?

The idea of cutting into someone’s body when they’re objecting is a pretty grim picture but presumably they’d be tied down for this?

In the last 24 hours we've had threads started recommending mandatory euthanasia, mandatory vasectomies and now mandatory sterilisation. What the fuck is going on?

They are not medically unwell!!! They are fucking predators

Emotionally, yeah I'd agree (especially after a bad day at work).

Rationally and logically? No. Human rights are not pick and mix, so unless you'd be ok with happening to you and those you know, regardless of the circumstances then you shouldn't advocate for it to happen to others.

This same argument has historically been used as an act of eugenics towards those who were considered "undesirable" for racist/ableist/xenophobic reasons. An example:

https://twu.edu/media/documents/history-government/Autonomy-Revoked--The-Forced-Sterilization-of-Women-of-Color-in-20th-Century-America.pdf

I don't believe taking away a person's right to bodily autonomy is the answer. Just as a person should not be forced to carry a child to term, it is equally unethical to remove their ability to have any child at all. As previous posters have pointed out, where do we draw the line? How do we remove personal bias and stigma from the equation? Unfortunately, poor parenting and neglect is a problem that has no simple solution.

The only way to lessen the impact of abuse on children would be better quality of life, job opportunities, access to effective mental health treatment, education, support for parents from all socioeconomic backgrounds, better support and treatment for those with drug dependencies etc etc. But the government is unlikely to invest in this to a degree where it would be truly effective.