Is sterilisation ever acceptable?

magma69

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-woman-warned-over-children-s-poor-school-attendance-1-6627588

Just reading this article where this woman has nine children, of which her 14 year old is the eldest and she (or the father) aren't sending them to school.

The idea of sterilisation is extreme and there's obviously alternatives to prevent these kind of social issues but in the worst cases can it be justifiable to incentivise sterilisation of people?

There's a lot of kids bring brought into households where neglect and abuse are rife. These kids form the next generation of dysfunctional members of society and it's really not their fault. Would it have been better all round if their parents had been sterilised with their consent?

Thoughts?

JuliusCaesar

Better social supports for existing children?

Education for parents?

Sterilisation exists and always did. I believe tubal ligation was a popular method of prevening pregnancy in the past - only, doctors could refuse to do it on religious grounds: "What do you mean, woman, you think you have had enough children? The Pope says not!"

Lapin

Threads like this should be sterilised at conception.

PandaPoo

If you attend a methadone clinic you should be given the pill too

Annasopra

Do you mean forced sterilisation against a persons will OP?

magma69

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you mean forced sterilisation against a persons will OP?

Incentivised sterilisation with their consent. I don't think forced sterilisation can be acceptable in any circumstances really.

magma69

Lapin wrote: »

Threads like this should be sterilised at conception.

You don't have to read the thread or post in it if you don't like the topic.

nc19

Just look around your local bad area and the teenagers in it. If they are anything like the ones around me then you would support sterilisation

Pumpkinseeds

This is an extremely emotive and sensitive issue. I do think it should be an option in some very limited cases and only as a last resort.

seventeen sheep

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

This is an extremely emotive and sensitive issue. I do think it should be an option in some very limited cases and only as a last resort.

It's hard to imagine a case where incentivised sterilisation would be a better alternative to, for example, encouraging use of the coil or other long-term forms of contraception.

Zen65

magma69 wrote: »

Would it have been better all round if their parents had been sterilised with their consent?

Almost certainly it would have been better for society if the woman did not bring nine children into the world when she is unable to cope with them. Should sterilisation be the method used to achieve this? Frankly if she is too irresponsible to have them attend school it is unlikely that she would have been responsible enough to choose voluntary sterilisation.

The reality is that she had a choice whether or not to have nine children (contraception has been widely available for the past 14 years) and chose to have them.

Paramite Pie

Perhaps if social services actually took the children from their mother (yes I know it's extreme!) there would be less of a problem.

Incentivised sterilization could backfire as some poverty-stricken women who don't yet have kids or only had the one might agree because of the immediate benefit (whatever incentive proposed is I don't know) but later when their doing better in life they may change their mind and want a 2nd child.

People who do things technically of their own free will can still be victim to severe pressure to do something they didn't want to do deep down. I think social services should be more proactive in removing children from damaging homes but we need an effective fostering program for that to work. And I'm not sure if we have that.

conorhal

I suspect that if you just capped child benefit at 3 children you'd see a sharp increese in reproductive responsibility.

Rubberchikken

if the govt had the courage to reduce the child benefit/means test it and sort it out once and for all, the birth rate would drop nicely in all social classes.

Lapin

magma69 wrote: »

You don't have to read the thread or post in it if you don't like the topic.

It's nothing to do with not liking a topic.

There are more appropriate ways of raising what is a serious issue.

Doing so on the back of a family of nine isn't one of them.

This thread is more of an attempt to whip up a Daily Mail type sense of moral outrage by singling out a particular family than it is about addressing the important issues that underlie the topic.

magma69

Lapin wrote: »

It's nothing to do with not liking a topic.

There are more appropriate ways of raising what is a serious issue.

Doing so on the back of a family of nine isn't one of them.

This thread is more of an attempt to whip up a Daily Mail type sense of moral outrage by singling out a particular family than it is about addressing the important issues that underlie the topic.

Oh get over yourself ffs.

It's a perfectly reasonable example which ties in perfectly with the thread. It's not like the person is named in the article. Also it's not so much the amount of children in the family it's the irresponsibility of the parents not sending them to school that is what inspired me to bring up the topic.

Lapin

magma69 wrote: »

Oh get over yourself ffs.

It's a perfectly reasonable example which ties in perfectly with the thread. It's not like the person is named in the article. Also it's not so much the amount of children in the family it's the irresponsibility of the parents not sending them to school that is what inspired me to bring up the topic.

Rubbish.

If that is your genuine concern can you show where you previously raised the question of sterilisation in a forum relating to home education?

magma69

Lapin wrote: »

Rubbish.

If that is your genuine concern can you show where you previously raised the question of sterilisation in a forum relating to home education?

lol I don't have to defend my motives to you. :pac::pac: Who do you think you are? The forum police?

Akrasia

Sterilisation, absolutely not. It's way too permanent and open to abuse
But long term implanted contraceptives, absolutely, these should be heavily promoted in circumstances where families unable to cope with the children they already have.

Rather than having it targetted at specific elements of our society, all women of child bearing age should have access to free or heavily subsidised contraceptive implants to vastly reduce the risk of crisis pregnancies

For families who are already engaged with child protective services in cases of neglect or other serious child safety issues, these women should have contraceptive implants as a requirement in order to qualify for welfare payments until specified conditions are met and the parents are deemed to be capabale of providing a safe and nurturing environment for their children.

As far as I'm concerned, the right to be a parent is totally subordinate to the rights of the child to have a safe and nurturing environment. People who have already demonstrated the inability to be responsible parents should not be allowed to have children until they prove themselves worthy of such an honour and responsibility.

Unfortunately, no public policy that relies on contraceptive as an integral part of family planning would be passed in backward catholic Ireland as long as the politicians still put their church before the best interests of our nation.

Dravokivich

magma69 wrote: »

Oh get over yourself ffs.

It's a perfectly reasonable example which ties in perfectly with the thread. It's not like the person is named in the article. Also it's not so much the amount of children in the family it's the irresponsibility of the parents not sending them to school that is what inspired me to bring up the topic.

It isn't. What you've presented is on the extreme side of things. Your attempt to equate it as the normal scenario for these types of issues is rather stretched.

It's like Time Cop/Minority Report where they persecute people for crimes they've yet to commit. Whatever you want to say about adding an incentive to go through with the sterilization is nonsense. It's just the carrot before the stick. You "incentivize" them in the hope that every one else who is an outstanding member of society can out breed them.

magma69

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Perhaps if social services actually took the children from their mother (yes I know it's extreme!) there would be less of a problem.

Incentivised sterilization could backfire as some poverty-stricken women who don't yet have kids or only had the one might agree because of the immediate benefit (whatever incentive proposed is I don't know) but later when their doing better in life they may change their mind and want a 2nd child.

People who do things technically of their own free will can still be victim to severe pressure to do something they didn't want to do deep down. I think social services should be more proactive in removing children from damaging homes but we need an effective fostering program for that to work. And I'm not sure if we have that.

You make some good points. And the foster home point is obviously more appealing to sterilisation but just like the education and social programs alternative, it's seems at this point in time at least, that the adequate services aren't there in this country.

Korat

Akrasia wrote: »

Sterilisation, absolutely not. It's way too permanent and open to abuse
But long term implanted contraceptives, absolutely, these should be heavily promoted in circumstances where families unable to cope with the children they already have.

Forced sterilisation seems too barbaric in this age but I think this makes sense.

magma69

Dravokivich wrote: »

It isn't. What you've presented is on the extreme side of things. Your attempt to equate it as the normal scenario for these types of issues is rather stretched.

It's like Time Cop/Minority Report where they persecute people for crimes they've yet to commit. Whatever you want to say about adding an incentive to go through with the sterilization is nonsense. It's just the carrot before the stick. You "incentivize" them in the hope that every one else who is an outstanding member of society can out breed them.

I clearly didn't equate that example of the normal scenario and only proposed the idea for the worst cases.

The idea of sterilisation is extreme and there's obviously alternatives to prevent these kind of social issues but in the worst cases can it be justifiable to incentivise sterilisation of people?

inocybe

cheaper and safer to sterilize the men involved.

Buona Fortuna

I've never been keen on sterilised milk. I just don't like the taste. Sooner have the tae black.

L.Jenkins

At one stage, I was all for forced sterilization, but I did come to the conclusion that it wouldn't work. A little too much like something the Nazis would be into for my liking. Social Services need to be more involved with families that need help. Education is a massive factor, with more affordable contraceptives.

Just look back to the days where contraceptives were illegal in Ireland. My own parents weren't privy to contraceptives, left school in their early teens and had a family of 4. Before them their own parents had 10+ children. It's not always the case, but education and employment would definitely help things improve.

SeanW

inocybe wrote: »

cheaper and safer to sterilize the men involved.

So she hooks up with another man ...

FunLover18

Lapin

magma69 wrote: »

lol I don't have to defend my motives to you. :pac::pac: Who do you think you are? The forum police?

"Motives".

Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:

Enough said about the intentions behind this thread right there in one word.

I'll leave you to it. Mind you don't catch a cold under that bridge.

Day Lewin

OP - you would need a crystal ball before you could accurately predict this; kids bring brought into households where neglect and abuse are rife. These kids form the next generation of dysfunctional members of society and it's really not their fault

In fact, poverty and illiteracy are not necessarily predictors that you will be an enemy of society. Some of the nastiest criminals ever to appear in court came from respectable middle class homes, often with very small families and decent education.

So let's not judge a person before they are even conceived, or judge a parent for how they rear their kids, until we have some evidence. And even then, who judges the judge?

PS: personal opinion: I thought it was a sickening suggestion, pre-emptive genocide.

eviltwin

No, I don't agree with it but do support long term contraception and education and support.

Sleepy

We should all be reversibly sterilized at birth and only those capable of supporting and raising a child to be a contributing member of society should be given access to the reversing treatment.

I don't believe the science is there yet but it's not that far away imo.

inforfun

A couple of years ago i saw a program on Dutch tv about a coupl who, to put it mildly were intellectually challenged.
4 kids they couldnt provide for financially (no jobs, just all the social welfare they could throw at them). The mother really tried to be a good mom but just lacked every skill needed, apart from love, to raise 4 small kids.
The father was a dickhead first class, just slightly brighter than mom.

Long story short . Kids were taken away by child protection.
Comment from the father to the documentary maker; I dont care, we just make new ones.

So yes, (forced) sterilisation is acceptable in certain situations in my opinion because in the above scenario you are not doing anyone any favours to not to do it.

Mesrine65

Of the utmost importance when brewing

Sorry wrong forum...

eviltwin

Sleepy wrote: »

We should all be reversibly sterilized at birth and only those capable of supporting and raising a child to be a contributing member of society should be given access to the reversing treatment.

I don't believe the science is there yet but it's not that far away imo.

How do you decide who is suitable to raise a child? That's the thing about being a parent, you can't predict who will be good at it and who won't. And coming from a crap home doesn't mean you're destined to be a waste of space.

jimgoose

It's all well-and-good in theory, but at what point do you go "Right! That's it!! Off to the tube-tying department with you!"? After the third child? The fourth? Is there a means-test or aptitude test to determine who is capable of having children as they see fit?

Sleepy

eviltwin wrote:

How do you decide who is suitable to raise a child? That's the thing about being a parent, you can't predict who will be good at it and who won't. And coming from a crap home doesn't mean you're destined to be a waste of space.

At a bare minimum, the financial means to support the child and a relatively clean record i.e. no-one with a list of convictions as long as their forearm.

One eyed Jack

magma69 wrote: »

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-woman-warned-over-children-s-poor-school-attendance-1-6627588

Just reading this article where this woman has nine children, of which her 14 year old is the eldest and she (or the father) aren't sending them to school.

The idea of sterilisation is extreme and there's obviously alternatives to prevent these kind of social issues but in the worst cases can it be justifiable to incentivise sterilisation of people?

There's a lot of kids bring brought into households where neglect and abuse are rife. These kids form the next generation of dysfunctional members of society and it's really not their fault. Would it have been better all round if their parents had been sterilised with their consent?

Thoughts?

Well, it's a bit late in the day to be talking about sterilization after the children are born. I don't think you're ever likely to get a consensus on incentivising people to voluntarily curb their reproductive choices, certainly not on the scale you're thinking of anyway. Women aren't particularly gone on the idea of sterilization, and the vast majority of men are averse to the idea of a vasectomy (another poster already mentioned it too but medical procedures for a man are a lot less invasive and at least reversible for a man than they are for a woman).

There's actually so much wrong with the idea of that sort of population control and social construction that it wouldn't even get off the ground tbh. Just look at the history of China's "one child" policy and you'll see the detrimental effects that has had on their country.

There are better ways to support these parents and their children, but any kind of promotion of sterilization would never be socially acceptable, and wouldn't even be considered in a society that regards itself as a civilised society.

the_monkey

Absolutely, these people should just be sterilised at birth.

Massive benefit/anti social behaviour/ crime problems SOLVED/ greatly reduced in one generation.

Of course I can't say that cos that makes me a nazi ...

January

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Perhaps if social services actually took the children from their mother (yes I know it's extreme!) there would be less of a problem.

Incentivised sterilization could backfire as some poverty-stricken women who don't yet have kids or only had the one might agree because of the immediate benefit (whatever incentive proposed is I don't know) but later when their doing better in life they may change their mind and want a 2nd child.

People who do things technically of their own free will can still be victim to severe pressure to do something they didn't want to do deep down. I think social services should be more proactive in removing children from damaging homes but we need an effective fostering program for that to work. And I'm not sure if we have that.

What happens when social services do take the children but yet the mother keeps having children.

uck51js9zml2yt

January wrote: »

What happens when social services do take the children but yet the mother keeps having children.

They get taken as well.


All mods should be sterilised to stop them having more mods. Last thing we need is them over running boards:)

January

So 7 children all taken into care the last two with health problems. When does it stop?

uck51js9zml2yt

January wrote: »

So 7 children all taken into care the last two with health problems. When does it stop?

Wasn't there a case last year with a welsh couple who came here to stop their new baby taken at birth. They were sent back to the UK.
Already had 1 child in care.

mister gullible

Newly married couples should get 'non child allowance' after 2 years and '2nd non child allowance' after 4 years. Allowances to apply for up to 16 years. If they do however have children they would then immediately lose the allowance.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, it's a bit late in the day to be talking about sterilization after the children are born. I don't think you're ever likely to get a consensus on incentivising people to voluntarily curb their reproductive choices, certainly not on the scale you're thinking of anyway. Women aren't particularly gone on the idea of sterilization, and the vast majority of men are averse to the idea of a vasectomy (another poster already mentioned it too but medical procedures for a man are a lot less invasive and at least reversible for a man than they are for a woman).

There's actually so much wrong with the idea of that sort of population control and social construction that it wouldn't even get off the ground tbh. Just look at the history of China's "one child" policy and you'll see the detrimental effects that has had on their country.

There are better ways to support these parents and their children, but any kind of promotion of sterilization would never be socially acceptable, and wouldn't even be considered in a society that regards itself as a civilised society.

I agree that sterilization is not the answer

But there's nothing particularly civilised about either
a. Taking children from their unfit parents
b. Leaving children in disfunctional and unsafe environments where they will be neglected and abused.

There clearly are individuals who are not fit to be parents and never will be. And amongst these people, there is a subset who will have children out of sheer recklessness, or to farm benefits, or worse. For this minority of people, I think the state really should have some kind of power to 'encourage' these people to get contraceptive implants, and making access to state support contingent on having no more children under these exceptional circumstances would be the best possible outcome IMO

uck51js9zml2yt

mister gullible wrote: »

Newly married couples should get 'non child allowance' after 2 years and '2nd non child allowance' after 4 years. Allowances to apply for up to 16 years. If they do however have children they would then immediately lose the allowance.

And the population decreases and we go the way of the dodo.

Buona Fortuna

inforfun wrote: »

A couple of years ago i saw a program on Dutch tv about a coupl who, to put it mildly were intellectually challenged.
4 kids they couldnt provide for financially (no jobs, just all the social welfare they could throw at them). The mother really tried to be a good mom but just lacked every skill needed, apart from love, to raise 4 small kids.
The father was a dickhead first class, just slightly brighter than mom.

Long story short . Kids were taken away by child protection.
Comment from the father to the documentary maker; I dont care, we just make new ones.

So yes, (forced) sterilisation is acceptable in certain situations in my opinion because in the above scenario you are not doing anyone any favours to not to do it.

Yes. Trouble is like everything the devil is in the detail. We can probably all agree on the hard case that you mention, it gets a bit more difficult when you move on to Sleepy's scenario below.

Sleepy wrote: »

At a bare minimum, the financial means to support the child and a relatively clean record i.e. no-one with a list of convictions as long as their forearm.

Trouble with that is, if people had waited to have kids until when they could afford them, we probably wouldn't be here arguing about $hoite

El_Duderino 09

The right to reproduce is seen as one of the trump cards in our society. You can debate them merits of the particular right if you want but it's highly unusual to forcibly sterilise someone against their will.

Research is fairly clear that; more accurate information children have about sex and more freely they can talk to adults about sex = later first intercourse, more consistent use of contraceptives, later first child, more family planning, lower number of children overall.

So education is the solution to the problem in the op. You still need to respect people's right to reproduce, even if it's maddening to see how some people use it.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

I agree that sterilization is not the answer

But there's nothing particularly civilised about either
a. Taking children from their unfit parents
b. Leaving children in disfunctional and unsafe environments where they will be neglected and abused.

There clearly are individuals who are not fit to be parents and never will be. And amongst these people, there is a subset who will have children out of sheer recklessness, or to farm benefits, or worse. For this minority of people, I think the state really should have some kind of power to 'encourage' these people to get contraceptive implants, and making access to state support contingent on having no more children under these exceptional circumstances would be the best possible outcome IMO

Hmm, you may not realise it, but the system you're advocating is actually very familiar sounding to the system the State had in place in the not too distant past where they outsourced the welfare of vulnerable people in society to the various religious orders, and well, we all know better now, in hindsight.

Your system would be no different, and indeed nowadays the State through the HSE and the likes of Tusla (only in existence about two years I think, if even that), outsources the welfare of vulnerable people to... you guessed it - various charity organizations.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

BeerWolf

Cap child benefits, at most 3 or 4, and you won't be seeing these welfare baby factories. People shouldn't be having kids if they can't financially support themselves with so many...

You actually get these 'things' having the audacity of saying it's the Government's responsibility of taking care of them and their kids!

Pumpkinseeds

Augustus Gentle Schoolwork wrote: »

And the population decreases and we go the way of the dodo.

I disagree. Maybe at one point it was a valid argument but nowadays people are more mobile. We have a lot of people emigrating to and from Ireland. There is a more diverse culture here than ever before. We do not need couples to have large numbers of children, particulary in families who cannot afford to have them. Child benefit should be capped at 2 kids. It should not be the tax payers job to pay people to have kids, who may or may not grow up to become adults who will work in this country.