Criminals can bear children but not raise them?

[Lagmonster]

Now, I don't know a lot about the legality of the issue, but as I see it in the law, a parent who is unfit to raise a child can lose the privilege of custody, but a woman cannot seem to be stripped of her right to bear a child.

So, am I wrong in thinking that this would seem to create a frustrating situation where even if a woman is a recognized threat to children, and has lost custody of children before, she can still make as many as they want even if she would always lose custody of them?



EDIT: I altered the name of the thread to give it more exposure and shortened the OP considerably to remove anecdotes and get to the point, because this topic is starting to irritate me for want of a satisfactory conclusion.

[Darth Wong]

I seem to recall that there was a case out west of a native woman being disallowed from pregnancy because she refused to stop taking drugs, but it's a bit hazy.

[Lagmonster]

The obvious question that would help is whether a woman does, in fact, have the right to bear children. Even at that, what is considered a legally sound method of preventing someone from getting pregnant? Incarceration would do it. Threat of legal action is the obvious middle ground, but that doesn't specifically prevent a woman with, say, HIV or a history of abuse or pedophilia from actually getting pregnant in the first place, and I don't think state-authorized abortion is in the cards, meaning it's yet another child on the foster parent system.

[LadyTevar]

This is one of the cases where the state should provide the woman with birth control, in the form of one of those injected time-release dohickies. If she wants her welfare, she gets the birthcontrol injection.

Pity we have no way to do that, tho.

[Hillary]

Would have to say that this seems a very draconian power to give the authorities. This is obviously a very extreme case and a very sad one - this women really needs help from social services not enforced sterility.

In any case, once the authorities have the right to inflict sterility/contraception on a woman for this reason, then why not include anyone with HIV (as they'll more than likely pass this on to any child). How about regular people (not crack-whores) who live on the state and have 4 or 5 children - how many should a woman be allowed on benefits until we say "enough is enough"?

[Lagmonster]

I've changed the thread title and shortened the OP to try to give it a bit more clarity and exposure. I cannot believe that I can't find any legal reference to the child-bearing rights of pedophiles. It would seem like the most basic no-brainer in the justice system, but all I can find is acres of websites re-affirming a woman's right to have a child in dozens of different situations.

[Hillary]

I've changed the thread title and shortened the OP to try to give it a bit more clarity and exposure. I cannot believe that I can't find any legal reference to the child-bearing rights of pedophiles. It would seem like the most basic no-brainer in the justice system, but all I can find is acres of websites re-affirming a woman's right to have a child in dozens of different situations.

So a 16-year old has sex with a 15 year old and is therefore barred from having children for life.

Society should NOT have the right to sterlise its citizens. It's fucking barbaric.

[Broomstick]

Granted that anecdote is not data...

... back when I worked for a drug rehab facility this question came up from time to time. We had one woman who had a standing court order that every time she gave birth the child would be taken from her before she even saw it. She squeezed them out every 18-14 months, too, most regular child-birthing addict I ever saw. She just would not take birth control. The only alternative would have been surgical sterilization which, due to past abuses, is almost impossible to impose on someone in the US.

It's not just a matter of providing contraception - the person in question has to use it. Granted, we could use implanted contraception, but that has it's drawbacks, not the least of which is relatively easy removal if someone is determined to do so. All you need is a sharp knife/razor blade and some good painkillers. Um.... heroin addicts know something about pain control, you know? Sure, it leaves a god-awful ugly scar but after 10 or 20 or more years of IV drug use it sort of blends in with the other scars.

Remember, boys and girls, criminals (and addicts) do not follow the rules. They do shit that would not occur to normal people.

[Hillary]

Granted that anecdote is not data...

... back when I worked for a drug rehab facility this question came up from time to time. We had one woman who had a standing court order that every time she gave birth the child would be taken from her before she even saw it. She squeezed them out every 18-14 months, too, most regular child-birthing addict I ever saw. She just would not take birth control. The only alternative would have been surgical sterilization which, due to past abuses, is almost impossible to impose on someone in the US.

It's not just a matter of providing contraception - the person in question has to use it. Granted, we could use implanted contraception, but that has it's drawbacks, not the least of which is relatively easy removal if someone is determined to do so. All you need is a sharp knife/razor blade and some good painkillers. Um.... heroin addicts know something about pain control, you know? Sure, it leaves a god-awful ugly scar but after 10 or 20 or more years of IV drug use it sort of blends in with the other scars.

Remember, boys and girls, criminals (and addicts) do not follow the rules. They do shit that would not occur to normal people.

Unless someone can convince me that this is a problem on any sort of scale, as opposed to the odd case, I simply cannot accept the need for the authorities to be able to enforce sterility/contraception on its citizens.

[Darth Wong]

Society should NOT have the right to sterlise its citizens. It's fucking barbaric.

If society has the right to imprison its citizens for the rest of their natural lives and even kill them upon commission of certain crimes, why shouldn't society have the right to sterilize them? This is not eugenics; it's not being done to people who have committed no crime.

[Broomstick]

Mike, I don't know about your country, but as I mentioned, here in the US forcible sterilization was so abused in the early part of the 20th Century that the pedulum swung the other way. It takes a LOT to get someone sterilized without their consent, much less against their consent.

This is also a dilemna for the parents of mentally retarded women, women who don't have the intellect to avoid being taken advantage of or to reliably use birth control, and who would be unlikely to have the ability to raise a child. It's a problem for schizophrenic women who might like to be sterialized but, because of their mental illness, may have their judgement in this matter called into question. It's not just a matter of crminals -- it's almost impossible even for very valid medical reasons.

There is also the problem of imposing medical procedures on someone without consent/against their will.

Hence, in the example I gave - which was intended only as a single example, not as a demonstration of something larger - the state opted to remove any children produced at birth as the best of several not so good solutions.

I have had the displeasure of helping to draft a letter that, basically, said "For God's sake, Judge, please take this women's kids away from her before she kills and/or maims any more of them". I doubt too many other people on this forum have had to do that. I did want to point out that simply providing contraception, even free contraception, will not solve the problem of poorly domesticated half-feral human beings that are selfish, self-centered, and posses few to no skills at forecasting long-term consequences of their actions. Or who just fucking don't care. I've met whores who were pimped out to strangers at a young age who honestly see nothing wrong with whoring out their daughters (and sometimes sons) to support their lifestyle and/or drug habit. After all, they survived it and that, sadly, is their normal world. I've met pimps who viewed their daughters as a source of income first and human beings second. These are not nice people. They don't follow societal rules. And as a rule they aren't very cooperative except when they see a chance of exploiting someone else.

[Talanth]

I don't like the idea of sterelisation for the same reason I don't like the death penalty: it's not reversable. But I agree that there are a very few cases, like the one above, where there should be enforced contraception (injected, say).

[Darth Wong]

Mike, I don't know about your country, but as I mentioned, here in the US forcible sterilization was so abused in the early part of the 20th Century that the pedulum swung the other way. It takes a LOT to get someone sterilized without their consent, much less against their consent.

I'm aware of the history of eugenics in America. I'm just pointing out that it's silly for a society to condone the death penalty while regarding forced sterilization as barbaric.

[Molyneux]

I don't like the idea of sterelisation for the same reason I don't like the death penalty: it's not reversable. But I agree that there are a very few cases, like the one above, where there should be enforced contraception (injected, say).

Aren't there certain forms of sterilization which are, indeed, reversible? I seem to remember at least one form of chemical castration which was...

[Lisa]

This brings to mind the whole nurture vs nature debate. If there is a gene that makes it more likely to be a criminal (like say a psychopath) should those people even be allowed to reproduce?

as for temporary means... depo provera is a 3 month shot in the ass, and I hear a vasectomy can be reversed about as easily as the original surgery is done. Though I suppose a guy could find a crooked dr to reverse the surgery.

How about parents that are too poor to properly raise a child? Should we be sterilizing (even temporarily) parts of Africa and India? Does allowing a child to be born in that sort of poverty mean abuse?

[Aaron]

Mike, I don't know about your country, but as I mentioned, here in the US forcible sterilization was so abused in the early part of the 20th Century that the pedulum swung the other way. It takes a LOT to get someone sterilized without their consent, much less against their consent.

Up untill the late 70's Canada practiced forced sterilization on it's mental institution inmates but like the US abuse of the system has ceased that practice. What they use in the place of it I have no idea.

[Ted C]

This is one of the cases where the state should provide the woman with birth control, in the form of one of those injected time-release dohickies. If she wants her welfare, she gets the birthcontrol injection.

Pity we have no way to do that, tho.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a way. There's a contraceptive called Norplant developed in the 90's. It consists of several rods of time-released hormones inserted under the patient's skin. It's supposed to prevent pregnancy for something like seven years.

Removing them is more difficult than putting them in, as I recall, because of scar tissue that develops around them, but nonetheless feasible if someone wanted to get off the contraceptive.

I don't hear much about it anymore, but it seems to still be available. If you wanted to put someone on an involuntary contraceptive, it seems a likely method. The side effects don't seem too severe, it's reversible if necessary, and it has a limited duration, anyway.

[Lisa]

Ted C: Norplant's been discontinued as far as I can tell

[Ted C]

Ted C: Norplant's been discontinued as far as I can tell

I had suspected that myself, but a quick websearch seemed to indicate it was still available.

Of course, the web ain't always right...

[Broomstick]

I hear a vasectomy can be reversed about as easily as the original surgery is done.

Not true.

Please, please do NOT believe this!

The problem is that the body continues to make sperm, some of which will tend to escape into the abdominal cavity through the cut ends of the vas deferens. These cells, containing only half the normal number of chromosomes and out of the protected areas of the testicles, will be perceived as foreign by the immune system. After a few years, the body's response is to generate antibodies to its own sperm. Eventually, these get loose in the testicles and destroy the sperm factory. You may be able to reconnect the plumbing "succesfully", but that does you no good if there is no babymaking juice left to flow through them.

In other words, the longer the amount of time since the vascetomy, the more likely the man is sterile due to auto-immune reaction. Depending on the man and whether or not sperm were spilled during the initial snip, this could take place as soon as a year of the operation though typically it takes longer.

There are methods of vasectomy that involve plugging the ends of the vas deferens, but they are far less common, technically more difficult, more expensive, and more time consuming. In other words, unlikely to be used on prisoners.

Consider a vasectomy to be FOREVER.

[Lisa]

<snip>After a few years, the body's response is to generate antibodies to its own sperm. Eventually, these get loose in the testicles and destroy the sperm factory. <snip>

Interesting, I'd never heard this before, in sex ed (which covered alot more then absinance) it was mentioned that it could be be reversed.

[Superman]

Man, you hit the one issue I could rant on for days. Yes. The most screwed up of society have the most kids and screw them up. They, in turn, will have more screwed up kids. These are the people going to prison, becoming hookers, etc.

This is how society will implode.

[Darth Wong]

<snip>After a few years, the body's response is to generate antibodies to its own sperm. Eventually, these get loose in the testicles and destroy the sperm factory. <snip>

Interesting, I'd never heard this before, in sex ed (which covered alot more then absinance) it was mentioned that it could be be reversed.

If a guy goes to a doctor and asks for a vasectomy, the doctor will make it very clear to him that a reversal is by no means guaranteed. I know because I was considering it for a while and I actually did go to a doctor and inquire about it. I didn't go through with it only because we have a fairly bulletproof contraception scheme as it is, and Rebecca said she didn't consider it much of a priority.

[Hillary]

Society should NOT have the right to sterlise its citizens. It's fucking barbaric.

If society has the right to imprison its citizens for the rest of their natural lives and even kill them upon commission of certain crimes, why shouldn't society have the right to sterilize them? This is not eugenics; it's not being done to people who have committed no crime.

It's nothing to do with eugenics, I also think the death penalty is barbaric and that people should not be locked up for the rest of their lives unless they are a danger to society.

[Spin Echo]

There was a non profit organization founded a while back called Children Require A Caring Kommunity (C.R.A.C.K.) that would give drug addicted women 200USD who volunteered to be sterilised. I'm still not sure how I feel about the program. While I agree that drug addicted women not giving birth to addicted babies is for the best, the means doesn't sit well with me. What about women who eventually get clean and want to have children? And exactly how voluntary is offering an addict money in exchange for being sterilised? Seems a bit coercive to me.