So this is the hill you've chosen to die on, huh?
They still can have children, just not biologically.
Well that's a relief, I'm sure they wouldn't mind you doing permanent damage to their reproductive organs then. Tell me, if someone wanted to make the teeniest change to your plumbing so you couldn't have children would you be comfortable with that?
So you think we shouldn’t send criminals to prison then?
Nope, I didn't hear a single person saying that absolutely none of the women should have been in lockup. But sterilisation was not part of their sentences and they didn't uniformly have life sentences either.
Your comparison of sterilization to the removal of limbs is completely based on emotion and the irrational value this culture places on having biological children.
And not at all based on the unfortunate fact that neither your limbs nor your genitals grow back if removed!
Sure, you think children less well off then they should be, that’s so regarding 
So that's why you want to sterilize women because they happen to be in prison, because you are saying "won't someone think of the children" who-presumably are hypothetical at this point?
If children raised by criminals in a certain time-frame are on average worse off than children who are not, then forced sterilization would be justified, since it is beneficial to society. If they are no worse off, then it wouldn't be justified.
And it’s the same things with prisons. If criminals are as likely or less likely to commit further crimes if they aren't sent to prison, and just have to take rehabilitation classes, or go through another program, then prisons wouldn't be justified.
Of course, it's not like a society can do anything to help these women before they end up in jail-except that is entirely possible, the same goes with assisting these women get through the difficult period of motherhood.
Also-I don't think there is a judge or a lawyer on the planet who wouldn't take issue with your horrendously simplistic view of rehabilitation programs, they don't have nice simplistic if-then outcomes because they are dealing with these messy things called "people". Some people will get help through a program, others won't-in some cases it's up to the participants to want that help, and some might have good days and bad days because they are you know-human.
Raising children is a responsibility, not a right.
If you are suggesting that breeding is a privilege granted by the state then I think you are on very shaky ground. Under which jurisdiction do states have this privilege, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or is it covered in the UN convention on the rights of the child? I'd like to see you cite the relevant law, statute or treaty if you are making this claim.
They are guilty.
Except in cases of wrongful conviction, and they were never sentenced to sterilisation, your opinions notwithstanding!
My position that forced sterilization isn't any more invasive than prison time, not that's it's not invasive at all.
Your position is backed neither by hard data or lived experience, also prison time-except in the rare cases of life sentences has a definite start and finish date. Sterilisations are forever!
Except women getting the abortions they want is an inherently good thing, while leaving criminals fertile isn't. If there's statistics and studies that show otherwise, show me.
You have the burden of proof precisely backwards, you are the one claiming that spaying or neutering criminals has any measurable social benefit!
