Sterilization - Should it be Mandatory in some cases?

[Motokid]

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- A pregnant woman has been taken into custody after three of her 14 children, showing signs of abuse, were found taking refuge in an abandoned house, police said Friday.

"The kids told us that the suspect regularly punches them with her fists and hits them with a broomstick and belt," police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz said.

Twin 9-year-old boys and a 6-year-old boy were found Thursday night with scars and bruising to their backs and faces, she said. The abandoned house did not have heat, water or electricity, and the floor was littered with feces and garbage, Schwartz said.

"It's apparent the children have been going there for a while," she said.

Schwartz said the woman, 35, is pregnant and has 14 children, ages 3 to 20. The six oldest children previously had been removed from her custody by child-welfare officials, and the remaining children were removed Thursday, authorities said.

Just to refresh everybody on what this woman did...that we know of...or at least what she's accused of.

 

[abecedarian]

The woman in question should not be allowed to have more kids. She should be locked up for as long as the law allows per count against her. Should she become pregnant while in the can, her child should be put in foster care, just like any other inmate could expect. No facility in the country is equiped to house infants and children.

 

[Isabell]

The punishment should be seriously considered only in extreme cases. I would have to look at each case individually.

I know that here in Illinois, we have a serious problem with welfare mothers having more kids for the purpose of receiving more money from the state. There's also a problem here with inadaquate fosters homes. Many cases of abuse allegations in those homes.....

Ok, I digress

Yes, I believe in some cases that there should be a consideration of sterilization.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

The woman in question should not be allowed to have more kids. She should be locked up for as long as the law allows per count against her. Should she become pregnant while in the can, her child should be put in foster care, just like any other inmate could expect. No facility in the country is equiped to house infants and children.

Yes, but why put the child through that? I have lived in a foster home, and trust me, it isn't all that fun. Would it not be better to just end her chances of reproducing, rather than shipping this kid off to foster homes?

 

[pontalba]

Keeping her locked up until menopause would be good too. People will treasure their freedom more than their ability to reproduce.

Let her out at menopause....!!
Oh yeah, that'd be great. If she is abusive now, I shudder to think what would happen then.

 

[pontalba]

They won't be reproducing in prision, and the taxpayers won't have to supply them with painkillers as they recover from their little surgeries.

There are many cases of women becoming pregnant in prison if there are male guards around. Are just women guards in women's prisons now? No men ever in the area?

 

[henrietta]

I would think that it would be the most effective way to stop people like her having further children that they can abuse, actually. Just how do you find it "ineffective"? And I'd like to hear your views on how this is "creepy", because personally I find people who think that it is ok that people like this women have more children that they are likely to abuse a bit "creepy" myself.

It's ineffective because it's a surgical procedure to remove reproductive organs, not an agent of change that will prevent someone from abusing children. I don't like the idea of this woman having more children, but I don't see her aberrant behavior as a sufficient reason to change our system of law - which tries, at least, to respect an individual's rights to various things, including control over their own organs.

It's creepy because women have had a very brief era in human history where their reproductive capacity was seen as their own business and not simply an extension of men's ambitions. To make sterilization a government-imposed punishment for child abuse is an echo of the past that should make anyone sick.

 

[abecedarian]

There are many cases of women becoming pregnant in prison if there are male guards around. Are just women guards in women's prisons now? No men ever in the area?

Are we to punish a woman for her guard's criminal act? Make male guards undergo "voluntary sterilization" as a prerequisite for hire? Where does it end?

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

It's ineffective because it's a surgical procedure to remove reproductive organs, not an agent of change that will prevent someone from abusing children.

But if she doesn't have children to abuse, how can she abuse them? This is practically the main point behind all of the discussions on here....

I don't like the idea of this woman having more children, but I don't see her aberrant behavior as a sufficient reason to change our system of law - which tries, at least, to respect an individual's rights to various things, including control over their own organs.

Law has nothing to do with weither or not the crime is wide-spread or not. You could call the act of murder aberrant behaviour - does that mean that we should go easy on them too? And I'm not sure what world you are living in - the USA /kills/ people as part of their law system - respecting their rights is it? I think that if a country is willing to end another person's life, then sterilization should be rather tame in comparison. Criminals don't have rights - they effectively lost them when they decided to commit a crime, IMHO.

It's creepy because women have had a very brief era in human history where their reproductive capacity was seen as their own business and not simply an extension of men's ambitions. To make sterilization a government-imposed punishment for child abuse is an echo of the past that should make anyone sick.

It in no way echoes the past. In the past it was in control of the male in the partnership - he could do pretty much whatever he liked with it. However, the system that we are proposing includes a jury of males /and/ females, as well as the judge. It isn't like this is to be a snap-decision. There is no reason to turn this into a feminist issue.

Are we to punish a woman for her guard's criminal act? Make male guards undergo "voluntary sterilization" as a prerequisite for hire? Where does it end?

.... Which is exactly why sterilization was suggested. That would get rid of all these problems.

 

[henrietta]

But if she doesn't have children to abuse, how can she abuse them? This is practically the main point behind all of the discussions on here....

She could shack up with/marry someone with kids, babysit, become a foster parent, befriend lonely little neighbor kids, adopt, be a teacher/Girl Scout/Brownie/Daisy/whatever leader, volunteer at various child-centered charities/organizations, etc. Childbirth is the most basic method, but hardly the only one.

Law has nothing to do with weither or not the crime is wide-spread or not. You could call the act of murder aberrant behaviour - does that mean that we should go easy on them too? And I'm not sure what world you are living in - the USA /kills/ people as part of their law system - respecting their rights is it? I think that if a country is willing to end another person's life, then sterilization should be rather tame in comparison. Criminals don't have rights - they effectively lost them when they decided to commit a crime, IMHO.

Criminals do have rights, and it's in our best interests in the long run to respect them. It is not currently part of our (here I speak of the US) system to allow state torture of US citizens who are prisoners or criminals. I will grant you that this may go on, and that there is currently much debate over the US treatment of non-citizens, but torture has never had much popularity in this country. In any case, I would support the death penalty for child abuse before I'd support the torture or mutilation of any criminal for any crime.

It in no way echoes the past. In the past it was in control of the male in the partnership - he could do pretty much whatever he liked with it. However, the system that we are proposing includes a jury of males /and/ females, as well as the judge. It isn't like this is to be a snap-decision. There is no reason to turn this into a feminist issue.

Oh, please. It's a feminist issue when you're talking about neutering women.

 

[pontalba]

Are we to punish a woman for her guard's criminal act? Make male guards undergo "voluntary sterilization" as a prerequisite for hire? Where does it end?

First of all, how do we know the sexual union was in fact rape? Why is the woman in prison to begin with, child abuse, or child murder? If she was in for that reason, she should be sterilized. No person that commits that sort of crime should be allowed to have children, yes, she has 'rights', and so did the children she tortured and/or killed.
Like most of "Life" its a Catch-22 situation.

MonkeyCatcher wrote-But if she doesn't have children to abuse, how can she abuse them? This is practically the main point behind all of the discussions on here....

Just as you say.

She could shack up with/marry someone with kids, babysit, become a foster parent, befriend lonely little neighbor kids, adopt, be a teacher/Girl Scout/Brownie/Daisy/whatever leader, volunteer at various child-centered charities/organizations, etc. Childbirth is the most basic method, but hardly the only one.

At least she would not be able to have these kids to herself, by herself in most situations. Hopefully in these types of situations, a parent or guardian would be in a monitering position and provide a system of checking on this person.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

She could shack up with/marry someone with kids, babysit, become a foster parent, befriend lonely little neighbor kids, adopt, be a teacher/Girl Scout/Brownie/Daisy/whatever leader, volunteer at various child-centered charities/organizations, etc. Childbirth is the most basic method, but hardly the only one.

I completely disagree that they would abuse children in any of these circumstances. Firstly, the government would not allow someone with a prior conviction for child abuse to become a foster parent, teacher or volunteer at children organizations - there is a little thing called a background check you know. Abusers would hardly go to the trouble of befriending neighbourhood children to abuse them - someone abusing their own children is far different from abusing others. You seem to think that these abusers are people who run around smacking up any little kid that they see - it's not like that at all. Majority only abuse their own children, and in public and with other children they are as lving as any other parent.

Criminals do have rights, and it's in our best interests in the long run to respect them.

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see how someone who has violated another person's rights is expected to have their own. They obviously don't care for other people's rights, and should therefore not have their own. It's as simple as that.

It is not currently part of our (here I speak of the US) system to allow state torture of US citizens who are prisoners or criminals. I will grant you that this may go on, and that there is currently much debate over the US treatment of non-citizens, but torture has never had much popularity in this country.

Popular or not, it still goes on, and I find this a lot worse than if all prisoners were tortured. I do not see how someone in their right mind can say "Ok, these people arn't allowed to be tortured, but those people...". It's sick and nothing more. Sterlization is not torture - I thought we cleared this up before? Torture is defined as: "Anguish: extreme mental distress" or "unbearable physical pain". I'd like to see you try and fit sterilization to that description, because the way I see it, it has nothing at all to do with it. It seems as though you just chucked the word torture in there to make it seem more serious than it really is.

In any case, I would support the death penalty for child abuse before I'd support the torture or mutilation of any criminal for any crime.

That view, to me, is absoutely disgusting. So you're saying that a person who kills another should get a lighter pentaly than one who attacks someone with a knife? It actually sickened me to read that comment - I don't see how you can be preaching on about people's rights when people's lives are obviously so unimportant to you.

Oh, please. It's a feminist issue when you're talking about neutering women.

Feminist is defined as "Belonging to movements and ideas which advocate the rights of women to have equal opportunities to those possessed by men". These women are having equal opportunities - I fully advocate the sterilization of men in similar cases. We arn't punishing these women for being women, but for their hideous crimes, and therefore it is not a feminist issue. Please .

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

At least she would not be able to have these kids to herself, by herself in most situations. Hopefully in these types of situations, a parent or guardian would be in a monitering position and provide a system of checking on this person.

I agree totally.

 

[SFG75]

From cnn

Is there ever a point when the state, or the law should force surgical sterilization on a person? Whether it be a male or female?

Sex offender or in this case a baby factory?

Could you ever justify it mentally from where you sit?

I can from where I sit by reading something like this.

To me, this is more of a slippery-slope kind of thing. Yes, this mother is a horrible one, but who is to say that sometime in the future, the number of children will be limited for those who can handle the responsibility? What will happen if you have eight kids and one of them is hurt through an accident that is just a thing that happens? Will the government take the kids away from you? I do not believe the state has the right to sterilize a person at all, this reeks of something out of 1930s Germany and even our own country in the past. Which sex offender gets the punishment? The 40 year old who molests a daughter or an 18 year old who made a mistake with a 13 or 14 year old? Perhaps these are far-fetched nuances, but some things where I believe it would be very difficult to draw the line.

No, I can't justify it-though I do understand where you are coming from here, as things like this outrage me from time to time and cause me to post some interesting things on my blog that I wouldn't normally post.

 

[Halo]

Firstly, the government would not allow someone with a prior conviction for child abuse to become a foster parent, teacher or volunteer at children organizations - there is a little thing called a background check you know.

That's the theory, anyway. There has been recent hoo-ha in the UK because a teacher with criminal convictions to do with children has been working in schools. Also, I myself worked in a school for at least two months before they decided to ask for a police check. The system (here, at least) is nowhere near infallible.

 

[henrietta]

Sterlization is not torture - I thought we cleared this up before? Torture is defined as: "Anguish: extreme mental distress" or "unbearable physical pain". I'd like to see you try and fit sterilization to that description, because the way I see it, it has nothing at all to do with it. It seems as though you just chucked the word torture in there to make it seem more serious than it really is.

Castrating (to chuck yet another word in there) someone is fairly serious, yes.

That view [death penalty is better than castration], to me, is absoutely disgusting. So you're saying that a person who kills another should get a lighter pentaly than one who attacks someone with a knife? It actually sickened me to read that comment - I don't see how you can be preaching on about people's rights when people's lives are obviously so unimportant to you.

Hey, I'm not the one advocating we save the children by castrating naughty women. I'm not quite following on the whole knife attack v. murder analogy; I was saying that I'd rather see a child-abuser put to death rather than mutilating them in some sort of combination of magical thinking (sexy parts gone, a-ok) and Old Testament zeal.

Feminist is defined as "Belonging to movements and ideas which advocate the rights of women to have equal opportunities to those possessed by men". These women are having equal opportunities - I fully advocate the sterilization of men in similar cases. We arn't punishing these women for being women, but for their hideous crimes, and therefore it is not a feminist issue. Please .

You can roll your eyes till they stick, it doesn't help your goofy argument. I find it helpful, when trying to communicate girly issues, to use the racial analogy. So pretend with me: we're looking at a black guy who beat his wife to death. To punish him for this murder, and to prevent his further beating of wives or sundry female companions, we lynch him. Oh, and if white guys beat their wives to death, we totally lynch them too! Equality! See? It's so unsavory and gross, I can't hardly stand it. In other words, feminism is not just about running neck and neck with the boys, it's about protecting those women who can't, or don't, from being abused by the system that was created by the boys, and fighting inertia (ie, sliding back into old historical patterns that just don't favor the girls)

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Castrating (to chuck yet another word in there) someone is fairly serious, yes.

I don't ever remember saying it wasn't serious - it is. My use of words - that it makes it seem /more/ serious - in no way implies that I think it not serious. Just that you are increasing the level of seriousness above the necessary volume. If that made any sense at all

Hey, I'm not the one advocating we save the children by castrating naughty women.

And that's worse than advocating the killing of said naughty women? Don't quite see your logic here...

I'm not quite following on the whole knife attack v. murder analogy; I was saying that I'd rather see a child-abuser put to death rather than mutilating them in some sort of combination of magical thinking (sexy parts gone, a-ok) and Old Testament zeal.

I'm not quite sure that you get what sterilization is. Her "sexy parts" don't go, she will still have her clitoris, and what "magical thinking"? You mean medicine and modern technology? It seems we are just going around in circles here - it is not mutilation; it is not torture. Mutilation is, and I quote, "an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part". What limb, what important body part? We have discussed this before - should women who get this operation done by choice me accused of self-mutilation? No - because it has nothing at all to do with it! The removal of tonsils isn't mutilation, so why should this be?

You can roll your eyes till they stick, it doesn't help your goofy argument.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you have not yet shown in any way that my argument is "goofy". Yet again, you are making wild statements without a shred of proof or backup argument.

See? It's so unsavory and gross, I can't hardly stand it.

Well that's rich coming from someone who was advocating the murder of criminals a few posts back.

In other words, feminism is not just about running neck and neck with the boys, it's about protecting those women who can't, or don't, from being abused by the system that was created by the boys, and fighting inertia (ie, sliding back into old historical patterns that just don't favor the girls)

Protecting the women by doing what? Ensuring equality. Any other type of gripe, such as this subject we are discussing, falls under the heading of "moral values". Your analogy did not show that it equality was bad under those circumstances, just that the laws in that place needed to change because of the moral implications. Not only the girls will be affected by this punishment. As I have previously stated - this only becomes a feminist issue if the punishment between the races was differed, but in my view it wouldn't be. I fail to see how this is something that only disagrees with the female criminals - I'm sure that the punishment doesn't "favour" the boys either - but it's not up to them to decide.

I don't call this "abuse by the system" - I call it out and out justice.

 

[Halo]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone to make sure things don't become personal when the discussion becomes a bit heated. Thanks guys.

 

[henrietta]

And that's worse than advocating the killing of said naughty women? Don't quite see your logic here...

There are limited circumstances in which the benfits of granting the state license to execute criminals outweighs the costs, in part because the sheer enormity of the act of killing a citizen places a great burden of justification on the state, and that tends to inhibit the increase of capital punishment. 'Lesser' punishments such as torture (and such as the imposition of sterilization) would be easier to inflict, and much more susceptible to misuse.

I'm not quite sure that you get what sterilization is. Her "sexy parts" don't go, she will still have her clitoris, and what "magical thinking"? You mean medicine and modern technology?

It's magical thinking to say that sterilizing a woman will somehow neutralize her ability to abuse children. You're trying to forstall the creation of victims not by preventing the aggressor from acting, but potential victims from being born.

It seems we are just going around in circles here - it is not mutilation; it is not torture. Mutilation is, and I quote, "an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part". What limb, what important body part? We have discussed this before - should women who get this operation done by choice me accused of self-mutilation? No - because it has nothing at all to do with it! The removal of tonsils isn't mutilation, so why should this be?

Two points - one, the issue isn't the operation itself, it's the force behind it. Any time a government gets free crack at someone's body, that justifies the use of strong language like 'mutilation' and 'torture'. Two - tonsils make a terrible analogy. Most people find their reproductive potential tremendously important, even if losing it doesn't involve the loss of a major limb.

Protecting the women by doing what? Ensuring equality. Any other type of gripe, such as this subject we are discussing, falls under the heading of "moral values". Your analogy did not show that it equality was bad under those circumstances, just that the laws in that place needed to change because of the moral implications. Not only the girls will be affected by this punishment. As I have previously stated - this only becomes a feminist issue if the punishment between the races was differed, but in my view it wouldn't be. I fail to see how this is something that only disagrees with the female criminals - I'm sure that the punishment doesn't "favour" the boys either - but it's not up to them to decide.

Something can be a moral issue and a feminist issue - feminism isn't trapped in some narrow realm of political rights, forever weighing the exact equality of men and women. Feminism should be out there fighting for the integrity of women's bodies (and men's too, if neccessary) and when you propose that the state get to sterilize women against their will as crime deterence, feminism absolutely becomes part of the situation.

 

[ruby]

Sterilization is certaintly not a removal of a womens SEXY PARTS.
Its two cuts one on your knicker line,the other just under your belly button where they place two clips or clamps on your fallopion tubes.
Its not a major operation and your usually discharged on the same day!

Just thought i would clear that part of this discussion up