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 partly agree. Child abusers should be sterilised. Rapist of any ages should be castrated.

But also, the government shouldn't have authority over your body, so I don't know.

I do know that we need to be providing so much more support to damaged people to prevent them hurting others.

I just think longer sentences are the answer. Ours are laughable. Like actually laughable. I don't really care if it acts as a deterrent or not, I don't believe the life of a child is worth just a few years in prison.

Sharif didn't even get life for what he did. How low is our bar?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/25/i-cant-sleep-im-terrified-the-rise-in-mothers-having-their-babies-taken-away-within-days-of-giving-birth-in-england

Rapist of any ages should be castrated

Leaving aside just how hard it is to get an arrest, never mind conviction, wouldn't it just encourage the murder of rape victims?

Or do you mean chemical castration?

I would definitely favour the route of harsh prison sentences for those guilty of harming children.

A (same-sex) prison would instantly eliminate the possibility of any more children being fathered by or given birth to by offenders; whilst respecting the human rights of those responsible for such atrocities - which, of course, preseves the dignity and honour of the state; and also the possibility of rehabilitation for those genuinely believed to have completely turned their lives around, as well as significant compensation and (where age and circumstances allow) the ability to go on to parent further children, in the small minority of cases where innocent people are entirely wrongly prosecuted and have been unjustly punished.

I don't think sterilisation would be the answer. I'd suggest long term contraception implants etc. Somebody should bang on and make one for men too. Make it a condition of receiving benefits.

Agreed most neglectful parents are drug addicts with potential to get clean one day so long term contraceptive but reversible is the way to go for them. I do agree pedofiles should be castrated though in fact actually the death sentence

So is child abuse yet it happens

It would appear you have an economic demographic in mind here.

Would you care to expand on this or do you think abuse and neglect is entirely class-related?

In my experience neglect is 90% drug addicted parents who are obviously unlikely to be rich as they're spending all their money on drugs. Obviously there are rich drug addicts too and obviously rich people who neglect their kids (although this is mitigated by being able to afford a nanny and boarding school)

That's why long term reversible is a good idea for them because they have potential to turn their lives around.

But they have it in the form of having to opt OUT of organ donation instead of the old system of opting in .

Child neglect often occurs due to physical and mental disability of the parent. It would be horrific to forcibly sterilise people like this. I don’t favour governments being able to have any kind of proactive authority over our bodies. Similar to the euthanasia bill.

The child abuse preventative measure for repeat offenders already exists in that their children can be removed on birth.

No

I read the article. What struck me is that both the mothers interviewed were brought up in care and had experienced significant trauma in their lives.
Resources would be much better spent making sure children in care are extremely well supported and helped when they become adults, especially when facing parenthood.
Forcibly sterilising them would be barbaric and just seems like an awful knee jerk approach.

Tricky one, e.g an abused heroin addict who had 3 kids by age 20 subsequently removed by SS is forcibly sterilised.

By age 35, they turned their life around, do a nursing degree, living a good life can't have children with their husband.

was it right to chemically castrate Alan Turing? because at that time, being gay was considered just as bad, if not worse than child neglect and abuse

No it wasn’t because being gay does not cause any harm whatsoever to anyone else.
Are you suggesting that one day child neglect and abuse will be acceptable just like being gay is?
What a ridiculous argument

I also don’t understand the argument that, if we introduced a law like this now for extreme cases, that subsequent governments may push it further. Those governments would just create the legislation to begin with so it wouldn’t matter

It's a lot easier though when there is case law, precedent and previous public support for it.

Also, it would massively depend on the wording . A wooly "risk of harm" could become anything in the future. A clear , restricted wording possibly less so.

That still doesn't cover people who are wrongly accused/lost children.

@LeavesOnTrees tbf, that's one huge concern. Do we honestly believe (and trust) the government of the day(any of them) to actually still bother to offer any help and support to struggling people , when it would be so much easier and cheaper to let them fuck up(whatever that looks like), remove one child(again without offering any help or support),sterilise them and done, let them get on with it.

That's no answer either - what about those who can't use hormonal contraception for medical reasons?

The IUD can be pretty horrific for some people as well.

Think of how much the state will save money by not able to pay extra benefits due to these people having children, costs of subsequent court cases if parent(s) repeats the child abuse/neglect etc.

Take the recently jailed mother who left two sets of twins whilst went shopping and they died in a house fire. The fire was spread easier thanks to the rubbish and other things in their messy home. https://news.sky.com/story/mother-jailed-for-10-years-after-four-boys-died-in-house-fire-while-she-was-out-shopping-13295354

She was jailed for 10 years. She could be released earlier and there's enough time to have further children again.

I'm fairly confident it I were to place a bet, a far larger amount of neglect certainly happens within low income households.

Abuse will for the most part be carried out by males, hence my suggestion long term male contraception should be created.

@EilonwyWithRedGoldHair How would you resolve it? Do you feel it is right or fair on a child to be born to parents with a history of abuse or neglect, where it is hightly likely that will continue.

Ideally of course there would be help and treatment for mental health and substance abuse. But until there is, more children being born into a cycle of mistreatment is not a good thing.

aaaand there's that slippery slope we were talking about.
offering long term contraception is a great idea. making it mandatory is not.

no. but back then it WAS considered to be a perversion that harms society.
they were wrong, but those that made the rules, DID believe it caused harm to others in society.

Medical procedures against someone's will?

Are you for real?