to think steralisation should be enforced

[claw3]

on anyone who abuses children?

God
this is like reading the Daily Mail
and on mumsnet

I think I might even have to do some work I am so appalled

Forever - Poland are imposing chemical sterilisation.

Why would we have to accept other harsh forms of punishments?

Thats very true about non biological abusers. But they are capable of reproducing whether they are step parents or not.

Seems most people think, abusers should be allowed to have children, im surprised

Why not just hang them that would stop them.

Doctors in civilised countries believe they have the responsibility to take actions which will help their patient. They do not subject people to actions which are to help other people, or "society" in general.

They would not knock you out and remove one of your kidneys to prevent other people having to have dialysis. They will not drag you in off the street to give blood against your will. They will not sterilise you because someone thinks you are not fit to have children.

If you would like to live in a country where your body is subjected to medical procedures for the good of others, feel free to go look for one

Here's a point of view noone's going to like - I think one of the reasons these crimes inspire such violent reactions is because noone likes to admit that we are human beings, and as such we all have the capacity to be absolutely vile to one another, given the wrong combination of circumstances.

There but for the grace of God, and all that.

And before everyone starts saying 'I would never harm a child', the important bit of my statement is 'given the wrong combination of circumstances'.

Rather than joining some witch hunt against social services, who in most cases do a good job, or the perpetrators of this crime, we should be asking ourselves what kind of society we have created that not only brings up people with the damaged personality and lack of conscience that makes them capable of such horrific violence, but also stands by and lets the violence get to this point before intervening.

But that would mean asking some really uncomfortable questions about ourselves and our society, really, so it's much easier to call for public hangings.

well, I can understand why you think it, but where would you stop??

they used to enforce sterilisation on those women that were classed 'sub-normal' (the wording at the time), and that was massively wrong....what right do any of us have to do that to anyone?

I know you could argue that what right should these people have to then be able to have more children, but surely if they have been caught, then they would be imprisoned and then any future children would be taken into care anyway.

and surely, sterilising them after the fact would not stop the simple fact that they have already ruined a childs life!

I also wonder if they were sterilised, that would mean that the authorities may possibly think they are now not a threat when actually, they still would be......what about meeting someone with children?? they would still have access to children, so, nope, this would not work.

Cupsoftea

I don't think (enforced) chemical sterilisation is really any different/better. It might not be as traumatic physically but it's still enforcing a medical procedure on an unwilling participant.

I never quite understood the logic of chemical castration of rapists anyway. You don't need a functioning penis to sexually assault someone.

I don't believe in corporal/capital punishment and I think sterilisation falls under the former category.

Whatfreshhellisthis
very good post indeed

Also what would happen if a child vindictively accused someone of child abuse? It does happen you know. DH had a case where some children accused a Doctor, it turned out that they were related to someone who had another grievance with the Doctor and it was a set-up. It ruined the Doctor's life anyway, but imagine if he had been forcibly sterilised as well.

Countess - I can put what i like at the end of my sentences. It is intended to show that im being friendly and not wanting an arguement, just trying to discuss.

Have no idea, why everyone has got on their high horse, about my and my spelling and getting totally defensive.

It would stop at sterilisation!

what the freshhell said

Whatfreshhellisthis

I 100% agree with you. I think society at large is often the elephant in the room when discussions about many things take place, including child abuse and especially things like alcoholism/drug abuse.

On the subject of drugs, I remember the Alexander experiments where he basically showed that rats who were given the opportunity to become addicted to morphine only became addicted if they were in an unpleasant environment. I.e. the rats in the cage with no bedding, no toys, no company etc. became junkies because they had nothing else. The rats in the super-luxurious cages with comfy bedding, plenty food and toys to play with didn't bother with the morphine.

I know, I know, they're rats. But I think it's an important metaphor for the pressures in society.

yes you can claw
but it makes you look thick tbh

nelly - what about that experiement with monkeys - some had a loving mother & others had a picture copy (something like that)that ignored them. Trying to remember the details correctly. The group that was neglected had big emotional problems.

Countess - the fact that you have even mentioned it makes you look petty and bitchy, but im not complaining

WhatFreshHell....I was thinking along those lines myself this morning
I think you are dead right
we project our disgust onto others because we are afraid of what we ourselves might be capable of, as you say 'given the wrong combination of circumstances'.
It makes us feel better somehow.

Sorry if that's a very depressing view of humanity...but its the view i hold right now

I must get on with some work
You must get on with your DM reading I guess

And the totally unethical authority experiments - Milgram, I think?

He showed that people were quite willing to give other people eletric shocks of a fatal intensity if someone in a position of authority (i.e wearing a white coat and saying they were a doctor) told them to. (the shocks weren't real, but the subjects thought they were and could hear the people they were 'shocking' screaming)

We ALL have it in us to be violent, abusive and horrifically cruel. Look at child soldiers in Africa and the horrors that happen in war, look at the Holocaust.

Those of us lucky enough to have been brought up with enough love and respect to have natural checks to those behaviours in place, should not resort to violence towards those who have been so damaged that they do not.

PMSL at "cut off their goolies" sketch.

Right guys, im off to another thread, seems most people are more interested in a slanging match and pettiness than actually having a discussion.

Have fun guys

I know which one you're talking about cupsoftea - think it was the Harlow experiments.

That was where baby monkeys had 2 "mothers" a wire monkey and a furry monkey (both just models). They showed that regardless of which monkey they associated with milk (the bottles were placed with just one of their "mothers") the baby monkey would always go to the furry monkey for comfort. Basically showing that there is more to forming attachment than simply providing "needs" such as food.

I think the ones who received milk from the wire monkey but went for cuddles to the furry monkey showed more problems than those who associated milk and cuddles with the furry monkey.

Could be wrong.

Thats the one Nelly

The problem, in this and so many cases appears to be not so much the natural parents as the boyfriend-factor. As in the case of the little girl starved alongside her brothers and sisters, the mother appeared to be at least reasonably competent, then along comes some bloke, who either abuses the mother or at least has her in thrall, who then proceeds to exert his will, often sadistically, on the children. I am not sure how sterilisation would help. I think this issue of so-called stepfathers needs to be thought about more.
The calls for sterilisation are not incomprehensible as an emotional reaction. I actually heard the husband of a social worker on the radio the other day saying how his wife would sometimes come home after an horrific day dealing with useless, incompetent, neglectful parents who had baby after baby, and say the same thing. However, as a serious suggestion, it is clearly totally impossible and wrong in a civilised society, even if some members of this society are not remotely civilised. All we can do - or all that exhausted social worker can do - is continue to take one drug-addicted, alcohol-damaged baby in care after another.

Does anyone think there is room for a degree of social engineering in offering financial incentives to those already unable to provide independently for their current children, to participate in effective medium term contraceptive schemes.

i.e., would it be disgusting if additional benefits payments were offered to women who have put their fertility on hold through use of a reliable contraceptive other than the pill (to easy to forget to take it or to come off it at will) or condoms(apparently prone to accidental pregnancies despite the use therof), rather than bring another child into a family already on the margins of society in terms of deprivation/poverty ?

I suppose there are too many areas where such a scheme would fail but Shannon Matthews' mother was certainly motivated by money - would she have had less children and more ability to look after those she did have if she had received a "contraceptive allowance" of some sort ?

Sterilisation does nothing to protect the children already harmed and it leaves step children as vulnerable as ever.

Don't flame me, I'm not for enforcing anyone over sterilisation or contraception but we need to ask some very difficult questions about the ability to have children regardless of ability to look after them financially or emotionally.