forced sterilization

[Ledifni]

They are having babies for a reason. Only God gives children to us. It is His gift, and ultimately, we don't have any say in it. So respctfully, we have no say in this. We can deal with it, if the parents can't handle it.

We have no say in it at all? It's odd, then, that God invariably sees fit to give children only to couples who recently copulated without protection.

 

[Jetgirl]

This is a good idea provided that:

1. the sum of money is sufficient (maybe $5000)
2. no group is targeted specifically

I'm thinking the sterilization would be at no cost to the woman, and they would get a lump sum for their trouble etc...

Yep, anyone who has three incidents of children being removed by CPS would be sterilized (probably should include men too).

 

[knightlight72]

We have no say in it at all? It's odd, then, that God invariably sees fit to give children only to couples who recently copulated without protection.

Not only that, but God even gives a baby to a woman who never even was with her soon to be husband (Mary) before giving birth to Jesus.

Who are we to argue with God? He knows us better than we do.

 

[Ledifni]

Not only that, but God even gives a baby to a woman who never even was with her soon to be husband (Mary) before giving birth to Jesus.

Let's look at the evidence here.

On the one hand, we have mountains of carefully collected and closely studied evidence that humans can't ever bear children without sexual reproduction (of some sort -- IVF is also sexual reproduction).

On the other, we have a religious book in which a couple of alleged eyewitnesses (who almost certainly weren't actually eyewitnesses) claim that a woman had a baby without any need for a man.

I'll take the first option, thanks.

 

[skipper]

At what price do we allow them to continue to try to be good parents, these specific people have had every oppertunity to get help. They have gone through the system including non profit organizations, churches and social programs the county we live in has to offer. It makes me sick to think that people think that its OK to continue to drop babies like your a dog in heat just because you can. I do not believe that God thinks what they do is OK, isn't there a commandment that says something about doing unto others. And yes if I cared for my dog let alone my child this way I would hope that someone would stop me.

 

[knightlight72]

At what price do we allow them to continue to try to be good parents, these specific people have had every oppertunity to get help. They have gone through the system including non profit organizations, churches and social programs the county we live in has to offer. It makes me sick to think that people think that its OK to continue to drop babies like your a dog in heat just because you can. I do not believe that God thinks what they do is OK, isn't there a commandment that says something about doing unto others. And yes if I cared for my dog let alone my child this way I would hope that someone would stop me.

Who is the creator of life? Doesn't He have a say if they are born?

The public interest would be to make sure the kids grow up in as stable a life as possible. But assume they will always fail cannot be shown or proven. There is always hope for every single person.

 

[whitestar]

Who is the creator of life? Doesn't He have a say if they are born?

The public interest would be to make sure the kids grow up in as stable a life as possible. But assume they will always fail cannot be shown or proven. There is always hope for every single person.

Tell that to those poor kids that were thrown over a bridge last week by their own mother...

 

[whitestar]

Wow, I guess I'm the only person who finds putting a woman's reproductive capabilities up for sale to be troubling. I certainly could not condone the government giving desperate addicts who are in no condition to give informed consent to anything, much less a procedure that will affect their entire lives, money to feed their habit if they will agree to be sterilized. Instead, we should be providing them with the support they need to enter rehab, turn their lives around, and be reunited with their children, which is what is ultimately in the child's best interest. We certainly should not be financing drug binges on the condition that they hand over their ovaries.

Maybe we could even try giving some of that money to struggling mothers BEFORE they become drug addicts, to prevent that from happening.

I have heard of programs like this...it works well. but its been a long hard road in convincing the goverment that funds these programs that they would actually save money instead of waiting for things to go bad. Putting children in the system is not free...rehab is not free, and all of these other things that tend to fail miserably..

Many groups are targeting young teenage mothers and other in low income areas to get the support they need BEFORE things go bad. Alot of parent's that abuse their children are not even on drugs anyway...its the stress factor, not enough money...working two or more jobs, unable to finish school or go to college, etc, etc, due to having children before they are ready....so yea, this would be the more logical way to go. But I think the subject is what about those that have done all of the programs (state pays for too) and keep going back to the drugs or the bad way of life? What do we do with them while they continue having babies because they are too lazy to use birth control?

 

[shezshy]

I don't think it's our call to make but I wish it was.God sees it,I know he must have plans for each child born even if it's going to be a hard road.It's a tough call to make on another persons right to bear kids.Abusive parenting may warrant jail time but you can't legally force sterilization upon any regular citizen.Even ones that make our system push the limits like this one.

 

[Seeking...]

I don't have a problem with forced sterilization - because having children isn't a right, but a privilege. People who repeatedly have children remved from their homes due to abuse and neglect should have the option of continually creating new life to abuse taken away.

Not everyone who abuses their kid is some poor, uneducated drug addict who would do better if they could. I do believe it is naive to believe that all of these people could be helped. You would first have to establish that all the people potentially involved believed they were doing wrong in the first place and wanted to change - plenty don't.

Don't pay her. Offer her sterilization and an abdication of all existing parental rights or jail - and do the same for the guy. That might suggest to society at large that we actually care about the well being of children if we prevent repeated abusers from creating new victims.

 

[loriersea]

having children isn't a right, but a privilege.

I don't think that's actually true. If you mistreat your children in ways the state has decided it won't tolerate, then your children will be taken away. But, that doesn't mean that reproductive capabilities are a privilege.

 

[Lycaenidae]

[/font]

I don't think that's actually true. If you mistreat your children in ways the state has decided it won't tolerate, then your children will be taken away. But, that doesn't mean that reproductive capabilities are a privilege.

Having children is a privilege of the fit, if you want to look at it biologically. In nature there is not a right to have children. Personally, though, I see this as part of a woman's right to choose.

 

[Seeking...]

[/font]

I don't think that's actually true. If you mistreat your children in ways the state has decided it won't tolerate, then your children will be taken away. But, that doesn't mean that reproductive capabilities are a privilege.

That is your opinion, which you have a right to. Mine differs considerably.
Many people have no or significantly compromised reproductive capabilities which suggests to me that it isn't a right - otherwise why would they be lacking? I also don't consider it a right to have children simply because children are not possessions - you don't own them - so how can you have a right to have them? I maintain that having children is a privilege, one you have a right to refuse or accept and one that should be taken away if you have proven incapable of respecting the gift for what it is.

 

[knightlight72]

Tell that to those poor kids that were thrown over a bridge last week by their own mother...

I believe God knew what would happen, and yet God created those babies. For what reason? I don't know,that is just one thing we may not know until we are with God.

But ultimately, I still trust God. I'm sure those children touched quite a few lives. I'm also sure they are with God due to their age.

Do you trust God? If yes, do you think someone other than God controls the creation of life?

 

[Tangnefedd]

They are having babies for a reason. Only God gives children to us. It is His gift, and ultimately, we don't have any say in it. So respctfully, we have no say in this. We can deal with it, if the parents can't handle it.

Well if that is the case, God better wise up and stop sending babies to people who can't handle them!!!!!

 

[skipper]

I have been touched by these children I adopted one and will take the rest when the time comes and because I know that the time will come. But Iam fairly sure that even if the next group of children are placed in care the parents will continue to have children. She is only 34 so if she continues to produce children at the rate in which she is, she could produce an additional 10 children or possible more. How can you say that this is her right. I do not believe that God thinks this is right. God gave us free will but it doesn't make Him responsible that these people keep having babies that they don't care for, anymore than it makes Him responsible for the fact that someone murders people.

 

[loriersea]

I maintain that having children is a privilege, one you have a right to refuse or accept and one that should be taken away if you have proven incapable of respecting the gift for what it is.

I agree with that, except that I'd change the "privilege" to "biological function." I guess childbearing could be considered a biological privilege, but I assumed you were talking about it being a governmental/societal privilege, in the sense that the government should have the right to determine who is "worthy" to bear children, which I don't believe it should be.

 

[Ledifni]

Don't pay her. Offer her sterilization and an abdication of all existing parental rights or jail - and do the same for the guy. That might suggest to society at large that we actually care about the well being of children if we prevent repeated abusers from creating new victims.

I agree completely. Sounds harsh, but you know, it's a damn sight less harsh than subjecting the children to that kind of living hell. I know -- I was the second of seven children with a violent psychopath for a father. Anybody who thinks it's cruel and unusual to prevent violent psychopaths from having children had better walk a mile in my shoes.

 

[Ledifni]

[/font]

I don't think that's actually true. If you mistreat your children in ways the state has decided it won't tolerate, then your children will be taken away. But, that doesn't mean that reproductive capabilities are a privilege.

Ok, but you still haven't told me why reproductive capability is an inalienable right. What's so special about it that it can never be taken away?

There is no other right extended by our society that we don't see fit to take away at times, except perhaps the right to life (and only in some places). Why is this one so special, that you're willing to see innocent children grow up in horrific conditions simply so that their parents won't have their right to procreate violated?

In the scenario given in the OP, I am sickened and horrified to hear about the plight of those children. I am not in the least bothered by the idea of sterilizing the parents. They are doing grave harm, they don't care, they have no intention of stopping, and they're thumbing their noses at the system because, they say, who are we to tell them they can't pop out as many babies as they choose?

I simply cannot understand your reasoning. It is better that children should suffer so their parents can have living, breathing toys to play with and abuse? Who are you to condemn those children to that fate? Who are the parents to condemn them to that fate?

 

[loriersea]

The right at issue is the right to bodily integrity. Bodily integrity is not a privilege, and forced sterilization is a violation of bodily integrity. Most people would not believe that, after a person steals a certain number of times, we should cut off their hands, or that after a child runs away from home a certain number of times, we should cut off their legs. I believe that bodily integrity is a fundamental right, and forced sterilization would be interfering with that. That is not to say that requiring someone to be on a semi-permanent birth control method, like an IUD or Depo shots, until they can prove they are capable of raising a child, is a bad thing, providing that person has proven to be incapable of making responsible procreative and childrearing decisions that have adversely affected their current children. But, to forcibly remove someone's ovaries is another issue altogether.