-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Sterilization - Should it be Mandatory in some cases?
- Thread starter Motokid
- Start date
ruby
New Member
Motokid said:
Yes her hands arnt the problem here
I agree with you here moto she should be made by law to have her tubes cut or tied because people like her dont deserve kids.The women carnt look after them and the poor kids end up in a kids home.They never asked to be brought into this world.
If you have kids you bring them up in a safe enviroment and out of harms reach.
Motokid
New Member
There's a big difference in my opinion. The baby factory in this story has commited some very serious crimes against her own children. The other thread is about loving parents who are raising healthy and happy children.
This thread is also about the idea of a governing body, or the law having the authority and the ability to perform a surgical operation against the will of the person based on criminal behavior.
I see it as two different, seperate threads.
This thread is also about the idea of a governing body, or the law having the authority and the ability to perform a surgical operation against the will of the person based on criminal behavior.
I see it as two different, seperate threads.
Motokid
New Member
It's just a question.
I don't see how, or why society should ever allow this woman to conceive again. She's clearly got some huge emotional problems. She's clearly caused many of her children to have emotional problems themselves. Who knows what permanent damage she's responcible for in the 14 children that are currently alive.
Plus, with 14 kids, and pregnant again, how many more should she be allowed to have? 3? 5? 2? How many?
I don't see how, or why society should ever allow this woman to conceive again. She's clearly got some huge emotional problems. She's clearly caused many of her children to have emotional problems themselves. Who knows what permanent damage she's responcible for in the 14 children that are currently alive.
Plus, with 14 kids, and pregnant again, how many more should she be allowed to have? 3? 5? 2? How many?
And what on earth has this got to do with the death penalty? Although if you wanted to argue that this woman could possibly deserve to be put to death I'd entertain that thought....muggle said:
muggle
New Member
The problem with setting a precedent is where do you draw the line.
Specifically what is the crime that deserves a penalty and specifically what penalty should be applied.
Then the next time something "similar" happens there is a precedent that has been set and the next person should be dealt with similarly.
Punishment that is irreversible (spelling) should not be taken lightly, especially when there are probably other ways to deal with the problem.
Specifically what is the crime that deserves a penalty and specifically what penalty should be applied.
Then the next time something "similar" happens there is a precedent that has been set and the next person should be dealt with similarly.
Punishment that is irreversible (spelling) should not be taken lightly, especially when there are probably other ways to deal with the problem.
Motokid
New Member
I don't mind setting a precedent when a mother has a long history of beating her children, and continually pumping out more for her battering.
Tubal ligation can be reversed, but I'm not sure why there's a need. In a case of a mother beating her children and abusing them at will for numerous years, why should she have a second chance? Or in this case a 16th chance.
If this woman is found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, is there any way that making her incapable of having more children is the wrong thing to do? In this case?
I'm talking this woman, and this case. Not some hypothetical thing 25 years down the road. This woman, this case being guilty of these charges? Could you live with being on the jury and recommending a surgical sterilization as part of her punishment?
I could live with that. Not a doubt in my mind.
Tubal ligation can be reversed, but I'm not sure why there's a need. In a case of a mother beating her children and abusing them at will for numerous years, why should she have a second chance? Or in this case a 16th chance.
If this woman is found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, is there any way that making her incapable of having more children is the wrong thing to do? In this case?
I'm talking this woman, and this case. Not some hypothetical thing 25 years down the road. This woman, this case being guilty of these charges? Could you live with being on the jury and recommending a surgical sterilization as part of her punishment?
I could live with that. Not a doubt in my mind.
Miss Shelf
New Member
If I were on the jury, I'd have no qualms about voting for sterilization, in fact I'm sorry it didn't happen sooner.
It seems every day I read about something or see on the news some form of child abuse or neglect that makes me sick. Yesterday, locally, a father was found guilty of raping his three-year old and broadcasting it on the Internet. The mother was also found guilty, they have five children, and I didn't want to read any more about what they did to the children.
I've ben following a story about a woman who gave up her baby for adoption without permission from the father (they're unmarried) and when he objected, the agency returned the child to the mother, who didn't want it back, her father is caring for it while the paternity testing is being done, which will take three months-the baby's father wants the baby. This is ridiculous, the mother didn't want the kid so she gives it up, then the agency gives it back, the baby is being passed around like a hot potato. Yes, the father should have been given the option to take the child before it was given up for adoption.
Then I read about a 19-year old mother who left her 4-month old baby alone in a high chair while she went to work. The mother has an 18-month old who is in the grandparents' custody.
I wonder if the world is going mad, or if there have been cases like these in the past before reporting them in newspapers became routine? Are children so expendable these days that people treat them worse than animals? So yeah, I vote for sterilization of people who abuse and neglect their children-both men and women.
It seems every day I read about something or see on the news some form of child abuse or neglect that makes me sick. Yesterday, locally, a father was found guilty of raping his three-year old and broadcasting it on the Internet. The mother was also found guilty, they have five children, and I didn't want to read any more about what they did to the children.
I've ben following a story about a woman who gave up her baby for adoption without permission from the father (they're unmarried) and when he objected, the agency returned the child to the mother, who didn't want it back, her father is caring for it while the paternity testing is being done, which will take three months-the baby's father wants the baby. This is ridiculous, the mother didn't want the kid so she gives it up, then the agency gives it back, the baby is being passed around like a hot potato. Yes, the father should have been given the option to take the child before it was given up for adoption.
Then I read about a 19-year old mother who left her 4-month old baby alone in a high chair while she went to work. The mother has an 18-month old who is in the grandparents' custody.
I wonder if the world is going mad, or if there have been cases like these in the past before reporting them in newspapers became routine? Are children so expendable these days that people treat them worse than animals? So yeah, I vote for sterilization of people who abuse and neglect their children-both men and women.
MonkeyCatcher
New Member
I agree - sterilization should be a punishment for any kind of gross child abuse/neglect. Child abuse is, in my mind, one of the worst crimes that someone could ever commit, and should therefore carry harsh penalities.
There is far too much child abuse going on, and maybe stricter laws will help to ensure that parents care for their kids properly. Last year sometime there was a story on the news about a local woman who left her child in the car during a stinking hot day to go into the casino with her friend and gamble. It almost died, but luckily a passerby spotted it in time. A person such as this does deserve to have her tubes tied. If she can't look after one child properly, then how is she expected to look after two or three?
There is far too much child abuse going on, and maybe stricter laws will help to ensure that parents care for their kids properly. Last year sometime there was a story on the news about a local woman who left her child in the car during a stinking hot day to go into the casino with her friend and gamble. It almost died, but luckily a passerby spotted it in time. A person such as this does deserve to have her tubes tied. If she can't look after one child properly, then how is she expected to look after two or three?
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
Keeping her locked up until menopause would be good too. People will treasure their freedom more than their ability to reproduce.
Motokid
New Member
Please, don't think that I'm suggesting that tubal ligation is punishment enough for situations like this. Obviously there needs to be years of serious mental evaluations, jail time, probation periods, community service maybe...????
I never intended to suggest that a female like this just needs to be "fixed" like a dog, and set free.
I just don't want the chance of pregnancy to ever happen again for this woman. From prison guards, boyfriends that come to visit (I can't spell conjugal...), or by any other means.
Yes, this woman should be imprisoned long enough that menopause takes care of any possiblility she could give birth to number 16, but who knows what and/or when she'll be in a situation where sex could be had.
No sense taking that risk. Snip snip.
I never intended to suggest that a female like this just needs to be "fixed" like a dog, and set free.
I just don't want the chance of pregnancy to ever happen again for this woman. From prison guards, boyfriends that come to visit (I can't spell conjugal...), or by any other means.
Yes, this woman should be imprisoned long enough that menopause takes care of any possiblility she could give birth to number 16, but who knows what and/or when she'll be in a situation where sex could be had.
No sense taking that risk. Snip snip.
Motokid said:
While you're at it, why not a clitoridectomy? Punish her for her completed crimes through prison, punish her for potentially planning to conceive future victims by sterilizing her, and punish her for having sex at all by turning it into torture. Sounds like a winner.
I don't understand this thread. Giving the government the power to humanely mutilate criminals is grotesque.
abecedarian
Well-Known Member
henrietta said:
Henrietta brings up a good point. The crimes this woman has committed are enough to lock her away for a good long time. This country has laws and punishments on the docks for her crimes. We also have a thing called civil rights that protect even criminals, from torture and abuse. Lock her away for as long as the law allows, but don't stoop to her level by hacking up her body.