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?

You are not wrong OP. But people will be along in a minute to tell you all about human rights and where will it end nonsense. Because of course the more degenerate you are, the greater your human rights.

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

Yes YABU. No 'repeated' offences necessary - just one. ONE case of significant child abuse or neglect and they should be forcibly sterilised.

Yes, poor them, eugenics, bodily autonomy, wah wah. I don't care.

It's not about sticking up for abusers, it's about preemptively sticking up for non-abusers because sterilising "unworthy" people is the thin end of the wedge.

Let's say the government of the day, whichever party they are, introduces it for child sex offenders. Subsequent governments could then add to it in line with their own ideologies until you reach a situation where "undesirables" aren't just sex offenders, they're also benefit claimants or disabled people or specific ethnic groups.

Forced sterilisation is Nazi level shit and has no place in our society.

I wonder how many of the posters who consider this akin to Nazism have considered becoming foster carers or mentors, or volunteered in children's homes.

And I wonder how many of those who think forced sterilisation is a great idea would volunteer to be part of the process - restraining the ‘patient’, maybe, or forcing them into a vehicle to be taken to the hospital, or holding them down while they scream as an anaesthetist attempts to force a mask over their face or a needle into their arm?

It isn’t ‘akin’ - forced sterilisations are pretty much what fascism is about. You should read up on it

If the child abuser in question had a history of holding children down and inflicting pain on them while they screamed then I wouldn’t mind to be honest.

It isn't civilised to abuse a child though is it and yet it still keeps happening.

How would you go about forcing surgery on an unwilling patient, and how many surgeons would be willing to carry it out?

Yes you can be sterilised under the mental health act . I remember a mentally ill woman many years ago kept having children removed from her care due to neglect but keep having babies because she was being taken advantage of by men in pubs , only for them to be taken away at birth .

It turned out years later she had undiagnosed post natal depression that turned worse . She eventually got treatment poor woman

There's situations where I'd agree but most neglectful parents are drug addicts and have the potential to get clean and change so it's a tricky one

This I agree with but there was another thread on this and people argued it's cruel to the mother. Like um hello what about the baby that is born withdrawing from drugs? And lifelong damage

‘Akin to’ is fair enough. Hitler wasn’t ’doing Communism’ when he forcibly sterilized people and communist regimes weren’t ‘doing Naziism’ when they did it. Or our labels become a mess.

Agree completely.

In my case, 2 foster children, who are 2 of 9.

What the hell is this comment ? Who cares about being "barbaric " to a nonce? I'd advocate doing something a lot worse to them sterilisation I won't spell it out because I don't want to get banned.
There would also be a big decline in reoffending if we shot them. Just saying

Seriously re read your comment it's giving "won't somebody please think of the nonces"

The, already pathetic, conviction rate will get even worse if this comes into play though.

It's already been proven that jurors are less likely to convict if the death penalty would be the result, so all that will happen is abusers and paedophiles won't be convicted at all.

I totally get the anger, and on an emotional level I think abusers and paedophile deserve to be shot.

On a practical level though it's unworkable.

Look at the abortion laws in America, for example, many women campaigned and campaigned to get the right to their bodies restricted, and felt they achieved something great by doing so, until it started to impact them, many women have come out now and said they were monumentally wrong because they didn't understand the full impact of giving up their rights, they thought it would only effect other people.

That's exactly what would happen here. The state gets the right to enforce sterilisation on some people, and people, like a lot on this thread, would celebrate and think it was amazing, until they, or someone they know was impacted by the law.

@bookworm14 I have actually restrained patients so they could be anaesthetised when I was working as a nurse. It’s not great but it happens.

I think many people are incredibly naive about just how awful peoples lives can be and the level of abuse endured. Those women and children have their entire lives ruined and no amount of therapy , love and affection can assist some of them as what’s happened is so extreme. I have met survivors of child sex abuse rings who were abused for years. One girl used to smash her head against the wall to try and make it go away and was on suicide watch, I still wonder what happened to her. Those abusers stole her whole life.

Terrifying.

To further add to your great comment about abortion and go back to my earlier post about forced sterilisation being the thin-end of the wedge, laws evolve. The removal of abortion rights was the start and it has escalated. In December, South Carolina proposed a bill that - if successful - seeks to apply the death penalty to women who obtain an abortion on the grounds that it is murder. That is one hell of a step up from "let's ban abortion" but that is why such laws are a slippery slope.

Allowing forced sterilisation of one group, no matter how much you think they deserve it, opens the door to it being applied to other groups, you could well find yourself a member of one of them and there'd be nothing you could do about it because you let those initial laws come into being.

No surgeon would be willing. The law around consent would have to be changed. No healthcare professional would be part of this. I suspect there’d be some plebs who would relish the chance to cause some harm to someone but luckily this is a moot question from OP. Plus there’s the HoL to get past. So I think this is a moot point / dare I say goady OP?

The OP wasn’t about child abusers, parents whose kids get taken into care repeatedly. Preemptive sterilisations of people who are deemed to be ungot parents is what the OP is asking.

Lots of goady fascist adjacent threads of late.

Thank goodness nobody has ever been wrongly convicted so there's no reason to worry about surgically removing organs from an innocent person!

Allowing forced sterilisation of one group, no matter how much you think they deserve it, opens the door to it being applied to other groups, you could well find yourself a member of one of them and there'd be nothing you could do about it because you let those initial laws come into being.

This. What if a new government came to power which didn’t think people with autism, say, should be able to have kids? Or if someone like Tommy Robinson became prime minister and decided they wanted to sterilise Muslims? Universal human rights are just that - universal. If you start chipping away at that principle you get into difficulty very quickly.

Ignoring the fact that children have been removed due to abuse which was proven to be a medical condition for example, let's say this comes to pass.

Do we keep it just for abuse? Abuse and neglect? Abuse or neglect? How high would the threshold for neglect be? Multiple children in one go or repeated removals? Do we even bother offering supper and early intervention or just remove and sterilise?

Now , what about risk of harm rather than actual harm? There's already a precedent for that which is why babies can be removed at birth. Why stop there and not preventatively sterilise anyone belonging to an "at risk group". Decide it all based on risk factors (addiction,mental health issues, disabilities, low IQ, care leaver , homeless etc) and protective factors(family support, stability in the home or financial or both, engaging with services etc) . Lots of risk factors and very few/no protective factors? Sterilise them before they even have a chance to have a baby. Statistics and research would come in very handy.

Guess what? We go down this route and one day it won't just be "child abusers and people who had several children removed" , it will be you, your children, your siblings , your best friend etc.

I wish this mother in France had been infertile and not allowed to adopt, instead of abusing her 8 children and killing her main scapegoat. It should translate to English automatically

www.bfmtv.com/police-justice/proces/elle-etait-souvent-enfermee-la-s-ur-et-le-frere-d-amandine-racontent-les-violences-commises-par-leur-mere_AN-202501220863.html