Yes, I know i'm really picking the controversial topics at the moment!

Thoughts?

Depends on how they're disabled; if their disability is such that they can't reproduce then it would seem pointless.

what prompted me to ask this question:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... ghter.html

The girl has the "reactions" of a three month old, cannot stand and is given to seizures. The pain and mood swings of a menstral cycle would be an added burden and obviously she would not be able to care for a child.
In this case it seems a reasonable decision to me.

The story isn't about a disabled person being sterilized to prevent pregnancy. It's about a profounded disabled girl who is having health problems related to menstruation. A hysterectomy isn't necessary simply to prevent pregnancy.

A couple, both developmentally disabled, were getting married. I was chatting with their case worker from welfare and asked about possible pregnancy. "Oh, yes, we've been giving them classes." I asked if she thought they were capable of dealing with birth control and she said, "Oh, no, we're giving them sex education classes because they want children."

I was not happy. The caseworker stormed out. We met again 2.5 years later in court where the custody of the children was being taken from the parents.

I don't know the answer but I'd support a plan to pay people, handicapped or not, to be sterilized.

As Patrick says, it's not about pregnancy (although the removal of that possibility is a plus) it's about the child's menstrual problems and their effect on her health.

The woman in the quote is jumping on the bandwagon, in a male there is no menstrual cycle to cause such problems; there could well be other reasons for males to be sterilized, although the problems that are likely to arise with them would require more radical measures than mere sterilization.

Samuel wrote:

Quote:

Carolyn Frohmader, chief executive of Women with a Disability Australia, told the Australian newspaper: 'It is only ever the disabled girls - when you go through the cases, there is never a boy, no matter how intellectually disabled, who has to be sterilised.

I would suggest that if she said this, then Carolyn Frohmander has a disability. A disability to look dispassionately at the issue in question without displaying a bias unfitting for someone in her position of leadership.

Although, maybe she has been misquoted by the media or taken out of context.

Perhaps she should learn something of ethics by looking at this site?

This is a controversial issue because so many people abuse this power. But, I believe in planned parenthood. I think it makes sense to sterilize people who could have kids that are not fit for survival. I like PatrickT's idea of paying certain people to sterilize themselves. I'd even not mind paying certain people to have kids, I think. But, there are so many areas where there could be abuse of this, but if it was all done safely, I have no qualms against it. I want to sterilize myself for several reasons.

RawVegan



I'm assuming you desire to have yourself sterilized as opposed to doing it yourself. That being the case, what is stopping you? Assuming you are of legal age to make decisions for yourself, if it isn't covered by your health insurance, save up your money and do it.