[MTVN]

I feel like we're kind of moving away from the original topic here because we're talking about adoption now instead of sterilisation, I guess that's my fault but what I was really trying to do is show the insufficiency of using blanket judgements to create the criteria for what a "suitable" parent is, and how it could possibly be decided who should be forcibly sterilised and who shouldn't, and that's before you even get into the morality of giving any government/state the power to take away an individuals ability to conceive, an area I think they have no right to get involved in. But anyway I'll try and respond to some of the points you made

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

I would not have thought that refers to those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Correct me if I am wrong. In what cases do you deem that it is ok for sex offenders to look after children?

If you can be confident they are not likely to pose a threat to the child, like you said "all cases should be decided on their own merits"

There is no comparison in those and that just is nonsensical to me. The concern here is about re-offending. Not whether a couple have a strong lasting relationship. You could use that argument against absolutely anyone at all.

Like I said in my reply to Vicky and above, it's more the principle of it; how you can't use blanket judgements to answer the question "what constitutes a suitable parent". Of course it would be ridiculous to impose a ban on all co-habiting couples being able to adopt, that's the point

In which cases? And just because it has been deemed acceptable by parliament in some cases, does not necessarily make it right.

In cases where they are "are related to the children or are pre-existing foster carers"

I would imagine most people who had been punished for a crime would hopefully be deterred from re-offending (although not in all cases). This is totally different though. This is not the same as, for instance, stealing one time because you were short on money. There is a desire in these people that is not necessarily quenched. Would you not say that there was actually a stronger possibility of an offence being made by a convicted paedophile to one being made by a seemingly normal average person?

This is taking us into the territory of what paedophilia really is, I believe it's a mental illness so maybe you can't eradicate it fully but many paedophile's go their whole lives without acting on their urges, just as psychopaths are not necessarily murderers. I don't think deterrence is that effective though, I'd rather they were given help and support, controversial as I know that sounds

"Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is unlikely", you say. How do derive at that conclusion? And I re-iterate the fact that I would not exclude any member of society. Abuse of a child is wrong, and they should be protected by any means possible and beyond all reasonable doubt.

I derived at it by the statistics saying 3/4 of sex offenders do not reoffend. And I don't really get what you mean, you would also want smokers, alcoholics and drug takers forcibly sterilised?