# Forced sterilization?



## AmyNation (Oct 24, 2012)

A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state. 

The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.

I can remember a coworker commenting that Susie was the poster child for forced sterilization. 

The question is, should people who do not have the mental capacity to fully care for themselves, be allowed to procreate? Is this a slippery slope best steered clear of, or should the state be allowed to sterilize the mentally impaired.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.


----------



## theliq (Oct 24, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...




As an Up Side to this statement,Beethoven's parents had 5 idiots before Beethoven himself was born,just sayin.  steve


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 24, 2012)

"When it comes to population control, the Shivraj Singh Chouhan  government in Madhya Pradesh appears to be inspired by Sanjay Gandhi and  his forced sterilisation drive.

"In a grim reminder of the  Emergency days, health officials in Madhya Pradesh are adopting  unethical ways to meet birth control targets. Poor and uneducated people  in the state are being tricked to undergo vasectomy (men) and tubectomy  (women)."

"The Congress has alleged that the government is using inhuman and terror  tactics for population control. "They lure poor and illiterate people  without telling them about the implications involved in the process. In  Jabalpur, three persons, who were sterilised last year, were forced to  undergo the procedure again recently. This is a human rights violation  of the worst kind," Opposition leader in the assembly Ajay Singh said."

Sterilisation nightmare in Madhya Pradesh as Shivraj Singh Chouhan does a Sanjay Gandhi : Mail Today Stories, News - India Today

The  National Population Policy had affirmed the government's commitment for  "voluntary and informed choice and consent of citizens" while availing  reproductive health care services and had stressed "continuation of the  target-free approach in administering family planning services".  

Read more at: Sterilisation nightmare in Madhya Pradesh as Shivraj Singh Chouhan does a Sanjay Gandhi : Mail Today Stories, News - India Today



Read more at: Sterilisation nightmare in Madhya Pradesh as Shivraj Singh Chouhan does a Sanjay Gandhi : Mail Today Stories, News - India Today"​


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

I am not in support of sterilising poor people or illiterate people. But those people who need care, and cannot even live by themselves, pay their own bills, cook their own dinner, should not be having babies, and nor should they be allowed to keep them.

Because you are unable to care for yourself, how in the world can you look after a baby?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 24, 2012)

"It is shocking to think eugenics flourished in our own beloved America  long before it got started in Nazi Germany.  Even more appalling for  those interested in the history of American science, leading biologists  promoted eugenics programs. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to  find estimates of how many people were sterilized nationwide as part of  individual state programs. The surviving data, however, suggests that  the number is likely to be in the ten thousands."



An American Scientific Nightmare: The Legacy of Eugenics « University of Chicago Undergraduate Law Review

"Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens. 

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the  person now in control of science policy in the United States? _Or both?_ 

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren,  whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House  Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for  Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of  Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United  States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: 

&#8226; Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; 
&#8226; The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs  intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; 
&#8226; Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from  them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; 
&#8226; People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables)  "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in  other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. 
&#8226; A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global  economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives  -- using an armed international police force. "

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


----------



## syrenn (Oct 24, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...



Oh i am in support of forced sterilization on not just the mentally impaired. 



Tennessee man has over 20 kids; owes child support to 15 women | WTVR.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3e41prVDv4]15 Kid Welfare Mom: "Somebody Owes Me" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

I do not believe such an insult is acceptable as I have not insulted you. As I have said before, treat me with respect and I will treat you with respect as I have been.

Now, can you please answer my question, and tell me how you would deal with such a problem?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 24, 2012)

"Nazi doctors carried out direct medical killings as part of "life          unworthy of life" policy, as well as deathly experiments on concentration          camp prisoners. German doctors were forced to do that according to the          Nazi medical decisions. There were two racial programs which directed          the entire work of the German physicians of that time:
        - coercive sterilization, 
        - killing of "impaired" people.
        Euthanasia program alone, the centers of which were in Hartheim, Somnenstein,          Grafeneck, Bernburg, Brandeburg and Hademar, has launched into eternity          about 100000 mentally and permanently sick people. They were murdered          in carbon monoxide gas chambers. The systematic euthanasia procedures          began in April 1940 and within three weeks all Jewish patients were to          be murdered."

They always start with an idea they can sell to the public. The nazis sold the idea of "Jews are bad'. Noomi is selling/buying the idea 'the disabled are not worthy of life'. You can see it in her insistence that women abort if they have the potential to have disabled children, her idea that a woman who glues her toddler's hands to the wall and beats that child almost to death be given a short sentence, and in her belief that disabled women should be forcibly sterilized.

Disgusting.

Nazi Nightmares - Medical Killing in Nazi Germany


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

syrenn said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> ...



Nah, just tell them that if they have any more kids, they won't get any extra welfare payments. The birth control will suddenly start working then.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 24, 2012)

just saying KG.... this is the CDZ.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...






that too.... 


but if there ever were poster children for sterilization...... these are a few candidates.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



That is fine. I am happy to go along knowing I am a better person, who doesn't stoop to insults when I disagree with someone.

Please answer my question - what would you do about a person who had a mental impairment, requiring round the clock care, who ended up pregnant and wanted to raise the child on their own?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 24, 2012)

China's one-child act exists to make sure people can care for the children they have.

Perfectly reasonable, no?

"
&#8220;The Family Planning Officials inserted an intrauterine device in me  after I gave birth to two daughters. I worked in another city since then  and didn&#8217;t go to the Family Planning Office for the pregnancy check.  But I was pregnant accidently again. The Family Planning Officials said I  was in violation of the &#8220;Population and Family Planning Law of the  Peoples Republic of China&#8221; and looked for me all around. On the lunar  calendar November 9, 2004, they had a conversation with my mother and  asked her to pay a deposit of 1,000 Yuan [$157]. My mother hid after  that.
 &#8220;Two months later, they found my mother-in-law. They seized her and  smashed her belongings. She was seized and released altogether three  times. They did the same to my third elder brother&#8217;s wife. On February  19, 2005, they seized my elder sister&#8217;s husband (Yongjun Hu, from Beiyan  Village, west of Liangqiu Town). He was detained in the town Family  Planning Office for a whole week and beaten twenty-seven times. Later  they seized my nephew (Qiang Li, 27 years old), his wife and his child  Ranran (one year old). My nephew was beaten fourteen times. His toenail  was trod down by a Family Planning Official&#8217;s leather shoes. After that  they seized my uncle&#8217;s wife (Shaoxiang Zhu, from the same village as I)  and my husband&#8217;s younger sister (she comes from another town).
 &#8220;They seized all my relatives they could find. On March, 2005, they  seized my younger sister Zhongyan Fang (pregnant with her first child  for three months). Seven or eight Family Planning Officials pushed her  into a car and detained her for a whole day. They set her free after she  paid 1,000 Yuan. My younger sister&#8217;s mother-in-law was also seized for a  whole week. They didn&#8217;t give her anything to eat or drink. She was  released after she paid 1,500 as so-called &#8220;tuition fee&#8221; [a fee for the  cost of detention].
 &#8220;My younger sister&#8217;s father-in-law was detained when he went there to  send food to his wife. He was beaten by six or seven people in the  Family Planning office. He ran out after one day&#8217;s detention. Then my  husband&#8217;s nephew, my third aunt and her husband (Kaifeng Liu) as well as  her granddaughter (not even four years old), my fourth aunt (Deying  Xue), my uncle&#8217;s wife were all seized. My uncle&#8217;s wife was beaten in the  car with rubber sticks all the way to the Family Planning Office. They  stamped on her with leather shoes. She lost consciousness several times.  Her kidney was so injured that she couldn&#8217;t do any manual work until  now (proven by the medical record prescribed by expert from people&#8217;s  hospital of Fei county).  They also seized my fifth elder brother&#8217;s  wife&#8217;s younger sister (Xuelan Guo) and my third elder brother&#8217;s wife&#8217;s  younger sister (Yufeng Chai).
 &#8220;My third aunt&#8217;s husband phoned me:  &#8220;If you don&#8217;t come back, your  aunt will be beaten to death.&#8221; I was forced to go back on 31st, March. I  was already pregnant for seven months at that time and was forced to  inject an oxytocic drug. My baby was aborted one day later. I had  ligation at 9:00 in the morning of April 13, 2005.  They let my aunt go  after that.&#8221;
 Because of the practice of &#8220;implication&#8221; twenty-two of her relatives  were seized, including three children, one pregnant woman and a woman  more than 70 years old. This deeply shocked us. To confirm, I told her  that I wanted to see her relatives.
 The next day I met with her uncle&#8217;s wife Yunxiang Cao in Liangqiu town, Fei County. She said:
 &#8220;At about 6:00 in the morning of March 9, a crowd of people (Feng,  Women&#8217;s Section Officer was with them) came to seize me. I was making a  fire in the courtyard at that time. They dragged me out and scolded me:  &#8216;We didn&#8217;t have any rest the whole night. You benefit from your relative  and we benefit from her too!&#8217;  Some of them beat me with rubber sticks.  They forced me to walk faster. They took me in their car and forced me  to lead them to seize my elder sister in Nanyan village.
 &#8220;I lost consciousness. I crossed my legs and covered my mouth with my  hands when I regained consciousness. My sister&#8217;s door was locked when  we arrived at her home. They scolded: &#8216;Take the b__ch in the car!&#8217; Later  they pushed me down into the car and asked me to find her neighbors.  They asked her neighbors to cheat her into coming back by saying that  her mother was seriously sick. After she and her husband came back, they  took them in the car. She worried about her granddaughter and said:   &#8216;What can I do with my granddaughter?&#8217;
 &#8220;They took her granddaughter in their car as well. She begged them  not to, but they disregarded that. They beat her and her husband in the  Family Planning Office. They beat me eight times and detained me for  three days."

http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/w...o-exposed-forced-sterilizations-in-china.html


----------



## Intense (Oct 24, 2012)

*Just a Reminder. This is the CDZ. No Flames. No Name Calling other Posters. If you need to Flame, take it to another Forum. Flagrant Violators will be Banned from this Forum.*


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Thank you, Intense.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.



since this is usmbs room for children

I leave it at this


Only an evil person would force sterilization on another.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.
> ...



There are some conservatives would like to see welfare recipients sterilized.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Only an evil person would force sterilization on another.

I don't know how to be more clear.


I understand people get upset, and blurt out hateful things.
but
When a person takes the time to think about what they are saying and then choose force on a hapless victim.

It's evil.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Okay, then can you answer my question that I posed a few posts ago? The one that KG refused to answer?


----------



## Intense (Oct 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Okay, then can you answer my question that I posed a few posts ago? The one that KG refused to answer?



Birth Control, not forced sterilization. Circumstances change. Permanent Procedures that are not reversible are not a viable solution. The solution, maybe, has more to do with the development of Personal Responsibility.


----------



## del (Oct 24, 2012)

Intense said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, then can you answer my question that I posed a few posts ago? The one that KG refused to answer?
> ...



 a person of limited capacity is, by definition, incapable of personal responsibility.


----------



## oldfart (Oct 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Okay, then can you answer my question that I posed a few posts ago? The one that KG refused to answer?



I'll be happy to answer.  I have a family member who had to make decisions about this situation.  They have been involved in advocacy for mentally impaired for forty years and the wife has a degree and lots of teaching experience in special education.  She refused to put her son in an institution when he was diagnosed and raised him with their other children.  In time, he was educated in a special education school and moved to a group home.  Eventually he and his partner moved out into an apartment.  They both work, ride the bus for transportation, go to church, and spend time with friends and family.  

At an appropriate age the parents made a decision for sterilization.  It's not an easy decision, but it is one parents can and should make.  The couple would be married today except for a law promoted and signed by the governor of their state that would make them ineligible for Medicaid coverage if they got married.  His name was George W Bush.  I guess "compassionate conservatism" came a little late to W.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Intense said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, then can you answer my question that I posed a few posts ago? The one that KG refused to answer?
> ...



What if the parents are opposed to birth control? How do you make sure a mentally disabled person takes that birth control?

You can give them permanent birth control by sterilising them...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.



What happened to "A woman has the right to make her own decisions about her body?" Is your real position actually "I am always right and everyone should be forced to agree with me?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> I am not in support of sterilising poor people or illiterate people. But those people who need care, and cannot even live by themselves, pay their own bills, cook their own dinner, should not be having babies, and nor should they be allowed to keep them.
> 
> Because you are unable to care for yourself, how in the world can you look after a baby?



If you are poor you obviously can't care for yourself or children either. You seem to have no actual position beyond an unfounded belief that you are perfect.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.
> ...



Evil and arrogant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

del said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Only if you think the law is always right.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 25, 2012)

Gene splicing to prevent 80 or below iq's. It's the moral thing to do.

There's no reason we can't do so once we have the technology.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Oct 25, 2012)

Why would you even want to give the government the power to say who can or cannot have babies?
All the people on public assistance are there because they can't take care of themselves - are they to be sterilized too?
How about that neighbor who is bi-polar - she won't stay on her meds - she can't take care of herself.
Don't forget about that 13 year old whose parents died in that tragic car wreck - she can't care for herself. They should sterilize her immediately!

Give me a break!
The government can't even tell which nations are friendly to us, how can you expect them to decide who can take care of themselves. It is sometimes unfortunate that the desire to procreate is so strong that it overcomes all obstacles but that doesn't mean that the government should be given a power that can so easily be misused and abused.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



And I assume that you have something that proves this other than baseless accusations?

You are upset that KG (in a post that I assume was removed) leveled insults and yet here you are, insulting conservatives by claiming that they supports such an asinine position as forced sterilization of welfare recipients.

Shame on you.  This is not debate and if this is what you seriously consider a valid point then there is no reason to bother coming here


Anyway, the answer to your OP is NO.  Or even better:
Nee, Jo, Aye, laa, Votch, Non, Nun, Yox, Net, Tjhee, Nie, Ne, Hapana

Pick your language.  The fact is that the government should not be given such power in any such circumstance.  You are essentially saying that the government should have the right to determine if you should be allowed to procreate based on something as completely arbitrary as intelligence or physical ailment.  Let me ask you, what happens when we extend this to determining that the far left is unfit for parenting?  How about when RW extremists are unfit?  Perhaps we should stop anyone that has diabetes (known to be genetically predisposed to people with diabetic parents) from having children. 

Then, of course there is the fact that those that are having children are only doing so because the state is SUPPORTING that action.  Perhaps the state should stop doing so.  This is not a simple issue.  People need to be taken care of when they are unable to take care of themselves BUT that does not mean that the state should then take the reins and start doing things like sterilizing the undesirables in society.  The state has no such right to do anything like this to people that have not even committed a crime other than existing.

The real question here is are you so far gone that you do not see the repercussions of such power in the hands of government?  How can you justify the very concepts of rights when you are going to advocate turning over even the most basic of those to the government in the name of society.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 25, 2012)

del said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



wrong


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



a person that disabled is unable to consent to sex, so you are talking about rape.

If that did occur, the safety net is already in place and she gets the help she needs.


see

 A moral conclusion


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

syrenn said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> ...


That's one of those times where I think free sterilization would come in handy.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.
> ...





If you cannot care for yourself and never will be able to, why is it acceptable to allow you to bring life, that you also cannot care for, into the world.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

If someone lacks the physical and mental capacity to care for themselves they are wards of the state.  The state actimg in parentis can have them sterilized.  Normally though, a birth control implant is used instead.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

I'm not sure if they are considered wards of the state or not.. I know before they married both lived in group homes, and are only able to live on their own because of programs like helpers and the case worker from the state.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

Then you don't know whether the state has the power to sterilize them or not.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

0.o

Obviously. 

I'm discussing whether the state should be allowed, not if the state already can.


----------



## del (Oct 25, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



no, only if i think limited capacity means limited capacity.

you're getting more stupid by the minute.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> 0.o
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> I'm discussing whether the state should be allowed, not if the state already can.



Of course they should be allowed to have people who cannot care for themselves sterilized!  It's part of being a responsible parent.  Once the state is in loco parentis, they obviously have that power.   Not only the power, but the duty to do so.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...



I believe that is a moral issue...along with abortion and the right (or not) to ones own body, and mind..for that matter.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

It's not a moral issue when it is applied to someone who lacks a decision making capacity.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It's not a moral issue when it is applied to someone who lacks a decision making capacity.



Apparently these folks that have these children despite their mental handicaps, and are capable of having children out of love and sex...so why does it not make that a moral issue?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

AngelsNDemons said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a moral issue when it is applied to someone who lacks a decision making capacity.
> ...



Because those who are severely mentally handicapped are incapable of making moral decisions.  They are not capable of making any decisions at all.   They have biological imperatives driven by an instinctual sexual drive.   Like an animal is.  The capability of having sex is not a benchmark of morality.  It is the capability of having sex.  These people must be cared for in the way that we care for our dogs and cats.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Then that depends on the severity of the mental handicap...are we talking mental illness such as depression or bi polar disorder? Or are we talking about those who have downs syndrome or severe forms of autism?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

AngelsNDemons said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...



There you go.   You answered your own question.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

AngelsNDemons said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...



I am talking about people who require permanent assistance from the state, who are considered mentally handicapped and are incapable of living totally independently.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Well...I suppose I did. 
IMO...those with severe mental handicaps should not procreate...BUT...it's not up to myself or you or any other for that matter to force sterilization on any body...that's where the morality of the issue comes into play...


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yeah...I understand where you are coming from about this...and yes, perhaps it's too much of a strain on taxpayers to care for these families that have children despite their handicaps, but it's also a delicate issue on whether it's "right" or "wrong" to make them steril...would it not be up to a family member to help make that kind of decision...why make it the states responsibility to force sterilization...what if the family is from a strong Catholic faith..or any other faith that is against birth control and abortion?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

AngelsNDemons said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...



The ONLY reason why it isn't up to YOU or ME to force sterilization on anyone is because neither one of us is in a position of control over that person.   The decision is up to the person or entity that is charged with the duty of protecting that person.   Protection includes protection from sexual harm.   A woman who is severely mentally incapacitated is incapable of consenting to have sex.  Therefore every sexual act is one of rape.  Even if she consents, she has no legal capacity to consent.   Since having sex includes the possibility of becoming pregnant, it is the DUTY of the person or entity charged with such protection to take actions that make sure this doesn't happen.   This includes the state.   It's why we spay and neuter our pets.  It's called being responsible.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Responsible yes...as far as morality comes into this, it should still be up to that of a family member who may have power of attorney over the said person with the handicap to make a final decision on whether to allow the handicapped to get the females tubes tied or a male a vasectomy...it will still be a sensitive issue regarding 'morality'...no matter which way it's viewed...whether we like it or not, morals and the 'right' thing rarely coincide.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

AngelsNDemons said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...


It's only a state decision when that person is supported by the state. 

I'm not advocating going around demanding anyone with an IQ below 70 be forcibly sterilized. If they have family who are helping care for them, then it's a family issue, however if the people caring for them are my tax dollars and yours, then it's a state issue.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 25, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...



No one supported by the state should have children regardless of their mental capacity.

For example if you apply for welfare with 2 kids, you should not get more money for subsequent children. 

If you are on welfare with no kids then you get no additional support if you have kids.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Again...I am totally on board with you...I am just questioning on how this would fly if it were to ever be proposed to the state.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 25, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> ...



I believe there is a current thread about that, and I happen to agree with you.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

AngelsNDemons said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > AngelsNDemons said:
> ...



Where there is no responsible family member that power falls to the state.   Where there is no power of attorney there is a judgment of competency.    Maybe you are being nudged into understanding reality.   When an incompetent adult has no family member and is a ward of the state, then the state standing in the shoes of the family gets to make those decisions.  

You know that an incompetent person cannot legally  sign a power of attorney form.  They lack the capacity to give a power of attorney.


----------



## April (Oct 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> AngelsNDemons said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Even if it is up to the state to make the final decision, it will still be an issue of "right" or "wrong"...just the same as abortion. We still have to fight for that right...either way it's viewed.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 25, 2012)

According to liberals, we don't get to choose what's right or wrong for someone else unless we have the legal power to do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> If someone lacks the physical and mental capacity to care for themselves they are wards of the state.  The state actimg in parentis can have them sterilized.  Normally though, a birth control implant is used instead.



Give them that much room and everyone will be declared wards of the state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2012)

del said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



The legal definition of limited capacity varies from state to state.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Oct 25, 2012)

There mental capacity did not keep them from getting married so they are not legally incapacitated or have a guardian who consented for them.
In spite of the fact that they have visiting help they are living on their own and therefore have every right to procreate. They are not dogs or cats - they have the capacity to love and awareness to have emotions. They obviously love their children because they are not losing custody for neglect or abuse. 
This question seems to be based on the support they are getting from the state and not whether they are capable of caring for their kids. The severely mentally impared cannot choose to live outside of the group home and these two did. They also understood that marriage comes before children. They seem to be more responsible than a lot of people who are not labled with any handicap.
Leave them alone - it may not be the PC thing to do but it is the right thing.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.



Who makes that decision?  The government?  Oh, this should be fun.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Oct 25, 2012)

I don't trust _anyone_ to make that sort of decision.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

If the only criteria for sterilization is being unable to care for your children, every person on foodstamps would have to be sterilized.

And that's the rub, and that's exactly where it would end up.

There is not a single instance where forcible sterilization has been employed where it hasn't almost immediately devolved into the most depraved and egregious mess of human rights violations. But progressives and negative eugenecists are going to continue to pretend that THEY'LL do it the right way, and it will be WONDERFUL.

It's a lie meant to cover evil.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 26, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.
> ...



Someone needs to make the hard decisions.


----------



## Politico (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm sure you would. Once you got to decide who had kids then you could move on to whacking the ones that weren't born up to standards.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

She's already up for that...you'll find her in the abortion threads discussing all the good reasons for killing in utero.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 26, 2012)

In favor of the concept, opposed to anyone's having the authority.

Contradictory, eh? Just like modern society.

No wonder we are all neurotic.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> She's already up for that...you'll find her in the abortion threads discussing all the good reasons for killing in utero.



I don't demonize those people who have a different opinion to mine. You seem to assume that if someone is pro choice, they cannot possibly be a decent person. That is where you are wrong.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't believe a decent person sees good in killing for any reason, nor do I believe a decent person advocates for forcibly and surgically altering people. That is not the definition of decent. It is the definition of fascist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 26, 2012)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > She's already up for that...you'll find her in the abortion threads discussing all the good reasons for killing in utero.
> ...



You don't demonize people who disagree with you? When did you start that?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

The thing is...some practices should be demonized, along with the people who promote them. There are some beliefs that are just so atrocious and foul that it is the responsibility of people to point them out and call them what they are.

Negative eugenics is #1 among those practices.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

The world has gone through a lot of hurt because people have refused to stand up against it. Negative eugenics = human rights violations. That's the beginning and end of that conversation, and always should be.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I don't believe a decent person sees good in killing for any reason, nor do I believe a decent person advocates for forcibly and surgically altering people. That is not the definition of decent. It is the definition of fascist.




oh....i see a lot of people who need to be killed.... we can start with death row and move on from there. 


Well... i also guess i must not be a decent person... becasue i have zero issue with certain people being fixed.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

It's a human rights violation to force people to do it. So if you are for forcibly sterilizing swathes of people based on whether or not YOU think they should procreate, it may.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

"
Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:


Right to privacy
Right to live, exist
Right to have a family
To own property
Free Speech
Safety from violence
Equality of both males and females; women's rights
Fair trial
To be innocent until proven guilty
To be a citizen of a country
To be recognized as a person
The right to express his or her sexual orientation
To vote
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
To think freely
To believe and practice the religion a person wants
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care)
Education
To communicate through a language
Not be forced into marriage
The right to love
The right to work
The right to express oneself"
Human rights - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pro-abortion, pro-forced sterilization wants to violate 2 of the first 3 human rights listed.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It's a human rights violation to force people to do it. So if you are for forcibly sterilizing swathes of people based on whether or not YOU think they should procreate, it may.




ok.... then lets give them a choice.  even EASIER! 

do you want the entitlements or not? ..... if you want them... get fixed first. 


No one is telling them to do a damn thing..... its a choice of what they want and dont want.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

Go for it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 26, 2012)

syrenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It's a human rights violation to force people to do it. So if you are for forcibly sterilizing swathes of people based on whether or not YOU think they should procreate, it may.
> ...



If you want free birth control we will sterilize you, sounds good to me. It might even shut Fluke up.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "
> Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:
> 
> 
> ...






once out of the womb.... you have your life. anything before that is a moot point. 

if you were born.. then you have family... a mother and father... possibily siblings and anyone else related to them. No one is taking away their family.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

Remember the abortion parties?

There could be sterilization parties along the same lines. The death cultists would love it.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

syrenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...





Nope. Right to HAVE a family. Family is defined in many different ways, remember? And we all have the right to create our own.

But if you're going to argue about under which CIRCUMSTANCES people are afforded human rights, there's no point to this conversation anyway. You've shown your hand.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...





I was thinking more along the lines of welfare, snap, aid to mothers with dependent children, section 8 entitlements......  that kind of thing.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...






from the start  and i make no bones about it. ..... i have zero issue with certain people being fixed.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

And that's a human rights violation.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 26, 2012)

The woman decides.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

Women don't have special rights to commit human rights violations.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 26, 2012)

theliq said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> ...



And they had to take care of those kids, too.  There was no welfare state in Beethoven's day.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

So..are we saying that since there is now a welfare state, the state should be able to sterilize people?

That's another good argument against welfare.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Women don't have special rights to commit human rights violations.



When you allow her to decide what goes on in your body, you can tell her what is going to happen with hers.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> So..are we saying that since there is now a welfare state, the state should be able to sterilize people?
> 
> That's another good argument against welfare.



no... what i take from the Beethoven comment is more that if you want a pet..... pay for it, keep it  and care for it yourself.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

You do realize this is a thread about forced sterilization? Are you arguing that mothers should not only be able to kill their children, but to have them sterilized as well?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

syrenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > So..are we saying that since there is now a welfare state, the state should be able to sterilize people?
> ...



No, what you are saying is that if the state pays for it, the state should be able to do whatever they  like to it.

It's a tried and true stance for fascists.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Its call being legally responsible for someone else.  If said person is a ward of the state... then yes, the state DOES have a say in what can and will be done to said person. If a parent is the legal guardian of said adult... then they too have the decision on what will and will not happen to that person. 

I also think the state should be able to say..... enough is enough. No more financial aid  of any kind unless you undergo permanent birth control. If you cant pay for the ones you have... the state should not be paying for you to have more.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

Welfare recipients aren't wards of the state. Sorry. Neither are students.


----------



## syrenn (Oct 26, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Welfare recipients aren't wards of the state. Sorry. Neither are students.




then i guess you didnt read what i said...


limits should be set on how many children the state will pay for........( i am thinking 2) if you have more then that and still want aid... then the choice is theirs...

permanent birth control.... or NO more aid.  No one would be forcing anything on anyone. 



In my opinion.... welfare recipients ARE wards of the state.....and were they hell do students come into this?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

"Financial Aid"


----------



## Nightson (Oct 26, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...




I do not believe the state should have the power to sterilize the mentally impaired. A tough call for sure. Guess the thought of government sanctioned/mandated sterilization for any reason no matter how well intended is reminiscent of the worst totalitarian regimes in history. Flip the coin however, and one must logically examine the long term negative result of a person who cannot care for his or her self being tasked with raising a child. Rather than sterilization perhaps a better approach would be to legislate some form of  mandated, accelerated adoption process for such situations...I don't know. What I do know is that the government ought never have the legal authority to decide who can procreate and who cannot. Scary stuff.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 26, 2012)

And we have proof that it never works for the good of the population. The Nazis did it, the Chinese are doing it, even we did it...and it is ALWAYS a nightmare. It can't be done correctly because it's a violation of human rights from beginning to end, and if you support human rights violations, obviously, nasty and horrible things happen.


----------



## TruthSeeker56 (Oct 26, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...



For most of my life, I have been acquainted with many Democrats/liberals/Marxists. Liberals have a laundry list of mental handicaps, and although they rarely marry each other, they live together so they can double dip on food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid, and other freebees.

The issue is, liberals like to have lots of liberal babies, so they can get MORE freebees from the state and federal governments. Having a baby to liberals is like getting a pay raise (if they had jobs).

Liberals are truly the REAL poster children for forced sterilization. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and people who are mentally ill should not be allowed to procreate.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 27, 2012)

_"There's a seeker born every minute"_ (Firesign Theater)


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 27, 2012)

syrenn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare recipients aren't wards of the state. Sorry. Neither are students.
> ...



How about we just dont give aid past the first two.  What is the point of even putting in the asinine requirement that you get serialized.  Simple, dont provide the aid.  

I find it laughable that the people here seem to believe that the state MUST provide aid for those that cannot help themselves.  Even those that can help themselves should get aid when they are in need or their ability to feed themselves is insufficient to whatever standard that we set.  THEN those same people turn around and demand draconian requirements like sterilization as though the state now owns the person in question.  No longer is this aid a matter of kindness or helping people, it is about power and ownership.  This is the problem with the entire concept of the public dole.  What the state giveth, the state may taketh away.  There is no other way to look at this other than straight out fascism.


Aid is a necessity BUT that aid does not give you the power over another persons body or ownership of it.  You dont get to arbitrarily decide that people need to give up an arm or a leg for state aid.  You have no right to force people to undergo sterilization because YOU think it is good for them.  Where does this asinine logic end?  At what point does a person retain any rights at all?  After all, the state provides police protection.  You should be REQUIRED to have a GPS implant that tracks your location at all times if you want police protection.  It would greatly reduce the resources and money wasted on investigating crimes.  What is the core difference here?  There really is none.  


Bottom line, the state works for us, it does not own us and has no right whatsoever to force me to do anything with my body that I do not want to do.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 27, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You do realize this is a thread about forced sterilization? Are you arguing that mothers should not only be able to kill their children, but to have them sterilized as well?



Adult children who are under a parental conservativeship may be sterilized any time the parent wishes.   Adults who are under state conservatorship may be sterilized any time the state wishes.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 27, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot care for yourself, you should be prevented from having children.
> ...



I would expect that the same medical documents that are used to prove you are unable to care for yourself and so you need permanant aid from the government.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 27, 2012)

Nightson said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> ...



Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the state have the power to sterilize the mentally handicapped. However, that if the mentally handicapped person is so handicapped that they cannot get a job and are completely and permanently reliant on the state than the state should be able to step in where needed.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Oct 27, 2012)

For the record, I do believe that unfit parents, mentally impaired, etc. should not procreate. What I think on the matter is irrelevant. In no way should the state EVER mandate sterilization of anybody. It simply is not the role of the government based on our Constitution. That is indisputably the domain of totalitarian regimes. 

That having been said. The government can discourage the unfit from making babies through certain types of policies, and probably should, but they can only go so far. Easy access to birth control is a practical and pretty cheap way to help. Also, it might be a good idea to remove entitlement-oriented incentives in an effort to discourage unfit parents from crapping out babies. Tax incentives for having children could probably be removed too.

I'm not normally a "bottom-line" thinker, but in this case, the bottom-line is self-apparent. Eugenics was toyed with in the U.S. already, with disastrous results, to include being an inspiration to the Nazis. It's hard to talk about anything vaguely related to eugenics without invoking Godwin's Law, but in this case comparisons to the Nazis are relevant. 

Yes, the government can and probably should discourage procreation by the unfit, but once policies start resembling eugenics in any form, it gets dangerous really quick.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 27, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> For the record, I do believe that unfit parents, mentally impaired, etc. should not procreate. What I think on the matter is irrelevant. In no way should the state EVER mandate sterilization of anybody. It simply is not the role of the government based on our Constitution. That is indisputably the domain of totalitarian regimes.
> 
> That having been said. The government can discourage the unfit from making babies through certain types of policies, and probably should, but they can only go so far. Easy access to birth control is a practical and pretty cheap way to help. Also, it might be a good idea to remove entitlement-oriented incentives in an effort to discourage unfit parents from crapping out babies. Tax incentives for having children could probably be removed too.
> 
> ...



Do you think parents of mentally incompetent adults should be allowed to have their children sterilized?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Oct 27, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, I do believe that unfit parents, mentally impaired, etc. should not procreate. What I think on the matter is irrelevant. In no way should the state EVER mandate sterilization of anybody. It simply is not the role of the government based on our Constitution. That is indisputably the domain of totalitarian regimes.
> ...



That's more complicated, and a different can of worms than state involvement. If forced to give an answer, I will still say no, but I am more willing to listen.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 27, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Jam said:
> ...


I would say its along the same line, as the state in this instance is legally considered the parent.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Oct 30, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



I would not. I do not consider government guardianship the same as parental guardianship at all, nor do I consider the former desirable in the slightest, as I do not trust the government with those kinds of decisions, particularly who is and who is not subject to something like forced sterilization. 

Parental decisions as to what is best for their child is a tricky matter for me personally. For example, one of my children has some behavioral issues. However, he is also intellectually very advanced. He was able to read words at the age of three, and now at the age of four and a half he has the math skills of a 2nd grader and he hasn't even started kindergarten yet. He has never been to preschool, and my wife and I have done very little to teach him these things. He has absorbed them on his own. However, he has behavioral issues that have made things difficult for him socially. It was suggested by some of our fine teachers in the public school system (feel free to take that as sarcasm) that he was autistic, but testing and his pediatrician revealed that was ludicrous. 

Something is up, that's for certain, but if we took the advice of public school teachers they would have us knock him up with some behavioral medication, not because they have genuine concern for his well-being or capacities or abilities, but to make things easier for them. And if we put him on behavioral meds, he might be easier to deal with, but what makes him so brilliant would also be affected. I have a big problem with the fact that more and more parents are being talked into, or even making the decision themselves, to knock their kids up on meds, again, not in the interest of their child, but to make life easier on themselves. My wife and I have made the firm commitment that we will resist all attempts by others to put our dear son on ANY meds unless it is for legitimate medical concerns. Our logic is that when he is an adult, if he wants to take on behavior meds because he feels it will benefit him, then fine, that's his decision, but if we put him on them now, and they limit his brilliance in ways that are irreparable, then he never really had a choice, and we would have changed who he is just to make things easier on us. If Albert Einstein had gone through childhood today, I am certain he would have been put on medication and dumbed down to the point of total obscurity. Not that my son is Albert Einstein, but there is certainly something striking about him, something that our other two children do not exhibit, and it is up to us to protect him from the state that would rather dumb him down in the interest of the herd.

You may wonder what the relevance is, and I don't blame you. The relevance is that it is not the role of government to make these kinds of decisions. Given some of the advice we have gotten from our wonderful public school teachers, we can only assume that, were the state in charge of our child, they would very quickly put him on some kind of medication, and it certainly wouldn't be with any concern over his well-being or potential. Based on that, I cannot trust the government, any government, with those kinds of decisions, not because of some conspiracy-theory driven paranoia, but simply because governments inherently make these kinds of decisions in the interests of the collective rather than the individual, and I favor the individual, at least when it comes to human life and well-being.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Oct 30, 2012)

Hey, come on, Forced sterilization has been used in the past with great success. Removing the incompatible and defective genes from the gene pool is a great act of humanity.

Just look at Hitlers camps in WWII, The mutilations of women in the far east and Africa and all the other times nations have taken it upon themselves to cleanse their populations of undesirable ethnicity or genetics.

That is where this kind of power take human beings. It is a flaw that we have and it come from the same flaw that allows people to think it is a good idea. (until they are chosen)


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 30, 2012)

Yes that's exactly my point. Not once in the history of mankind has forced sterilization proved to be helpful, or in fact anything except specifically harmful, to people.


----------



## varelse (Oct 30, 2012)

Forced sterilization never leads to good places. Who knows who must next wield the state?

Mandatory bc if on welfare. You can refise benefits/assistance if you don't like the stipulation


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Yes that's exactly my point. Not once in the history of mankind has forced sterilization proved to be helpful, or in fact anything except specifically harmful, to people.



Forced sterilizations by whom, and on who?   After all we were discussing whether or not people who cannot make decisions for themselves should have children that they cannot care for.  If the family of a severely mentally disabled person decides that the person is best served by being sterilized it is a family decision.   When the family is non existent and the State sits in loco parentis, then the State makes that decision.  It isn't complicated and it has nothing to do with rounding up thousands of people and forcibly sterilizing them against their will.   After all, the severely mentally disabled person really has no will beyond the immediate.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Oct 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that's exactly my point. Not once in the history of mankind has forced sterilization proved to be helpful, or in fact anything except specifically harmful, to people.
> ...



A severely disabled person should not procreate. I think any reasonable person would agree with that. The concern, and a genuine one, is relying upon the state to decide what constitutes fit and unfit. Simply agreeing that a severely disabled person shouldn't procreate is not a good enough justification for the state making that decision.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 30, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



That decision is made through a court decision called a conservatorship.  The disabled person has ample opportunity to plead their case as to why they are competent enough to care for themselves and make their own decisions.    This is whether the conservator is a parent, sibling, other interested party or the state.   Once a person has been adjudged to be incompetent to make their own decisions, then the conservator makes them.   For medical care, for sterilization and contract.   A person under a conservatorship can't order a magazine subscription.    It really has nothing to do with whether or they they should be allowed to procreate, it is far more involved than that.   Does a severely disabled woman even know she's pregnant?   Can she care for an infant?   Does she think it's her newest dolly?   They might have sex because it feels good, without even knowing that having sex can result in pregnancy.    The family of a woman (or the state) might have her sterilized against the event some one has sex with her because they promised a lollipop.   She doesn't know what she's really doing.   Of course some women are just raped without even an ice cream cone.     Some years ago an attendant in a residential facility used the disabled women there like his own private little brothel.   The women were too disabled to tell anyone.    Sometimes even when they can manage to tell someone, they aren't believed.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Oct 30, 2012)

The problem is that if the state is performing the sterilizations they are also the ones that decide whether you can or cannot take care of yourself. Does a quadrapellegic who is on state benifits need to be sterilized because he can't take care of himself? How about older men on SS? How about any group that is felt as a threat by the state? 
Power corrupts to the extent of the limits of the power. Power also covets power so it grows. You begin with a power to promote commerce between the states and then you end up with taxes on interstate commerce. You begin with a power to sterilize those who are indigents and then you end up with new definition of indigent. It has happened all throughout history. Governments cannot be trusted - that is why our government was supposed to insure our rights. They now regulate our rights.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 30, 2012)

PaulS1950 said:


> The problem is that if the state is performing the sterilizations they are also the ones that decide whether you can or cannot take care of yourself. Does a quadrapellegic who is on state benifits need to be sterilized because he can't take care of himself? How about older men on SS? How about any group that is felt as a threat by the state?
> Power corrupts to the extent of the limits of the power. Power also covets power so it grows. You begin with a power to promote commerce between the states and then you end up with taxes on interstate commerce. You begin with a power to sterilize those who are indigents and then you end up with new definition of indigent. It has happened all throughout history. Governments cannot be trusted - that is why our government was supposed to insure our rights. They now regulate our rights.



Are you deliberately not understanding.  No one just decides.  If the state decided that you could not take care of yourself, the state would file a conservatorship against you.   You would be provided an attorney if you could not afford one AND an advocate to help you.   The state would present its case to a Superior Court Judge, you would present medical evidence, examine witnesses and speak on your own behalf.   After all that, if witnesses say that you have a penchant for wandering the streets in the nude, in the middle of the night, your treating doctors say that you think you are living in the capital of mars and children are invaders from Jupiter and you can't guide the hand holding the spoon to your mouth, you would be declared incompetent.

Please don't confuse indigent with incompetent.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Oct 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It could be that I am not entirely understanding the OP. I do understand what you are talking about, however, and I don't really have a problem with it.


----------



## William Joyce (Oct 30, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Eugenics was toyed with in the U.S. already, with disastrous results



Which were?


----------



## William Joyce (Oct 30, 2012)

Eugenics happens when a hot chick in a bar spurns the advances of an ugly dude.

Government intervention to stop that, anyone?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Oct 30, 2012)

There was a similar "court" set up in Germany, Afica and in China. The court was controlled by the government and there is no protection from that happening here.
I think you don't understand. No government should have the power of life and death over any non-criminal part of its population. It is bad enough that the government sometimes makes mistakes in sentancing criminals to death, you want to give them that power over non-criminals?

Yes! that would be a future that I would watch from a hidden vantage point - just to see your reaction when they came for a friend, family member or you.


----------



## William Joyce (Oct 30, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Nah, just tell them that if they have any more kids, they won't get any extra welfare payments. The birth control will suddenly start working then.



Sure, but then even conservo-tards like Rick Santorum will start bellyaching that we're punishing innocent children.

I think we could introduce elements of voluntary sterilization:  you can either do your state sentence, or be sterlized, Mr. Criminal Thug.  You can get welfare, Miss Welfare Mammy, but you must simultaneously agree to be sterilized.  

Of course, it will be controversial.  But we live in a Moronocracy, so the preservation of morons is important.  It's how we get our elected officials.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Oct 30, 2012)

William Joyce said:


> Eugenics happens when a hot chick in a bar spurns the advances of an ugly dude.
> 
> Government intervention to stop that, anyone?



Eugenics refers to systematic attempts to improve the human race by designating that which is genetically inferior and trying to remove it. It was a popular movement in the U.S. prior to WWII, and was largely unopposed by most Americans. It was one of those things that seemed like a good idea, and for which there is a logical argument. The Nazis cited the U.S. use of Eugenics as an inspiration, but in there case for "ethnic" purification. 

Anyway, I was simply offering an opinion, mine alone, that I am generally opposed to a system of eugenics because of the potential for arbitrary determination by the state. What Katzndogs brought up is reasonable and makes sense, and I have since realized I may not have had a firm understanding of the OP, or then maybe Katzndogs is talking about something different than the OP. I'll have to dig back and see where I may have gone wrong. Anyway. I'm not trying to take a partisan stand on the subject.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 30, 2012)

There's a difference between choosing to be with someone and having children with someone because they complement you...and forcing OTHER people to conform to your own criteria for breeding.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> There's a difference between choosing to be with someone and having children with someone because they complement you...and forcing OTHER people to conform to your own criteria for breeding.



But if mentally disabled people are having children, doesn't that mean that people like you have to pay to support them? Why create more people you have to support? I would have thought you'd prefer to reduce that...


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists, and it is a violation of human rights to apply it to particular populations..whether they are poor, disabled, a particular color, race or religion. 

Republicans don't approve of many entitlement programs...but what left wingers cannot comprehend is that we would fill the gap even if the programs went away. Because leftwingers are so locked into the idea that if the government doesn't help people, nobody will help them (because most of them would never consider personally assisting in this personal manner). It's just not true. It has never been true. Remove the entitlement programs and communities will continue to support those who need it the most.

You'd be amazed if you knew how much communities assist people NOW...outside of the government. You'd be even more amazed if you had any idea how much the state relies upon and refers people to religious organizations to pick up the slack. Caseworkers provide their clients with resource sheets, most of which are covered with the addresses and phone numbers of local churches or religious organizations that provide clothing, housing, food, money, personal items, furniture, medical care to those who ask for it.


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 31, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that if the state is performing the sterilizations they are also the ones that decide whether you can or cannot take care of yourself. Does a quadrapellegic who is on state benifits need to be sterilized because he can't take care of himself? How about older men on SS? How about any group that is felt as a threat by the state?
> ...



I have learned a valuable lesson. People *cough* KG *cough* see forced sterilization and get Nazi turrets. Thank you for bringing your knowledge of the legal system to this thread.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2012)

PaulS1950 said:


> There was a similar "court" set up in Germany, Afica and in China. The court was controlled by the government and there is no protection from that happening here.
> I think you don't understand. No government should have the power of life and death over any non-criminal part of its population. It is bad enough that the government sometimes makes mistakes in sentancing criminals to death, you want to give them that power over non-criminals?
> 
> Yes! that would be a future that I would watch from a hidden vantage point - just to see your reaction when they came for a friend, family member or you.



No you don't understand.   This is not new.  It has been going on in the United States for over 100 years.  If you are afraid the government will control the courts then there really is no help for the country is there?   If ONLY those asinine laws passed by the efforts of the ACLU would be repealed so we could once again start putting people in mental institutions instead of letting them die in the streets.  But no, those laws exist so we really can't do that.

These are cases I've been involved in for more than 30 years.   I had to get a conservatorship over my step father so he could be put into a lockdown facility.  I've helped family members and even interested sympathetic friends get conservatorships.   Conservators are RESPONSIBLE for the incompetent person.   If a woman under a conservatorship gets pregnant the conservator is responsible.  If she's raped, it's the conservator's fault.  Even if the conservator is the state.  

Is it possible for the Judge, the attorney for the incompetent, the advocate for the incompetent and all the doctors treating the incompetent to get together and collude to find someone perfectly competent as unable to care for themselves?   Could be?   Please provide some information as to when this has already happened.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists, and it is a violation of human rights to apply it to particular populations..whether they are poor, disabled, a particular color, race or religion.
> 
> Republicans don't approve of many entitlement programs...but what left wingers cannot comprehend is that we would fill the gap even if the programs went away. Because leftwingers are so locked into the idea that if the government doesn't help people, nobody will help them (because most of them would never consider personally assisting in this personal manner). It's just not true. It has never been true. Remove the entitlement programs and communities will continue to support those who need it the most.
> 
> You'd be amazed if you knew how much communities assist people NOW...outside of the government. You'd be even more amazed if you had any idea how much the state relies upon and refers people to religious organizations to pick up the slack. Caseworkers provide their clients with resource sheets, most of which are covered with the addresses and phone numbers of local churches or religious organizations that provide clothing, housing, food, money, personal items, furniture, medical care to those who ask for it.



Sterilization in cases of gross incompetency has nothing to do with eugenics but protection of the person, individually.    As you point out, resources are available to those that ask for it.  Incompetent people can't ask for it.  They don't take their medication unless someone lives with them and makes sure they do.   A woman might have sex with 8 men in one night thinking that she's playing monopoly and keeps winning each throw of the dice.   They might get hungry and eat rocks, or grass, or think that fresh dog shit smells good.  They take care of children the same way.   They are sterilized for their own protection, not eugenics.   An incompetent pregnant woman will have the baby in the street, get up and leave it there.   She makes no connection between her actions and the result of a baby.  
Most of them make no connection between having sex and anything else beyond the immediate act.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...


 
You've never learned a lesson in your life. We already have the ability to sterilize certain people as outlined. What is being promoted here is widescale sterilization forced upon people based upon their ability to raise children..and THAT in turn is determined by things like whether or not they are accepting any ASSISTANCE from the state...such as foodstamps.

So when I see *cough cough* people, like *cough cough* noomi who are promoting not only forced sterilization, but also widescale abortion and lessened oversight of those who commit crimes against children, I begin to consider the Big Picture.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a community in which forced sterilization of a particular population had a happy ending?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists, and it is a violation of human rights to apply it to particular populations..whether they are poor, disabled, a particular color, race or religion.
> ...


 
Except that is not the concept that is being promoted here.

Syrenn, noomi and others are pulling for forced sterilization of people who receive BENEFITS, as though THAT proves they are grossly incompetent. So anyone who wants to get foodstamps for their kids would be determined "incompetent" and told they must be sterilized to get their benefits.

This is how it works...you make it difficult to get food without vouchers, then you require people to sign up for abortion/sterilization/euthanasia before you give them vouchers.

Remember how Nazis convinced Jews to climb aboard the trains?  Remember how they shut down their businesses, then gave them ration tickets, and then managed to keep track of them?


----------



## AmyNation (Oct 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Whatever you've been snorting must be powerful.

Please point out one instance in this thread where I have suggested "wide scale sterilization based on someone ability to raise children". In fact, i have repeatedly said that's not what I'm suggesting, and have agreed with Katz repeatedly in this thread. You simply have choosen to argue a point that no one else is arguing because you dont want to discuss what is actually being talked about.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



What is being promoted HERE is quite different from what's really being promoted.   What's being promoted here, exists solely on this board.   Abortion and reduced oversight of those who commit crimes against children are less functions of an autocratic government imposing its will upon an unwilling population than it is of a population gone so liberal that it can no longer tell the difference between good and evil.   Then the population can force the government into changing it's positions on just about everything.

Years ago, prior to the ACLU lawsuit, mentally incompetent people could be taken off the street and safely housed.     Now they can't be.    As long as they have not been adjudged incompetent in a court of law, they are considered competent.    This is why every winter the mentally ill homeless die in the alleys of exposure.   It's why incompetent people are put out on the street immediately after surgery, because they say they want to leave and no one can stop them.

Yes sterilizing people based on their ability to take care of children MUST be a consideration.   The determining factor is the degree to which they are incompetent.   Are they unable to change a diaper, or will they feed their baby mudpies?   If they need supervision to keep from burning down the house, they will need full time child care.  Most individuals with some level of functioning are not incompetent.   They might live in a residential facility that allows them a bit of autonomy.   Then they will be taught to use birth control and the women will be given their pills, or have their implants.   Since we have so many laws against sexual discrimination, there is no such thing as women's or men's residential facilities.   They all house both men and women with fully functioning biological imperatives.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

What is being promoted HERE is sterilization of people based on whether or not they receive benefits. Which is a far, far cry from what you're talking about.

And you're wrong about the residential facilities. I was program manager for group homes for diminished capacity adults. We had women's houses, and men's houses.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> What is being promoted HERE is sterilization of people based on whether or not they receive benefits. Which is a far, far cry from what you're talking about.
> 
> And you're wrong about the residential facilities. I was program manager for group homes for diminished capacity adults. We had women's houses, and men's houses.



Not around here.  It's not allowed.  

If sterilizing people based on whether or not they receive benefits is the subject (and you agree that the permanently mentally impaired should be sterilized) then they should be at the very least implanted with birth control so as to not have any more children.  They cannot control themselves, they have children mindlessly and expect others to support them.   If they cannot control themselves, and their sense of responsiblity is non-existent, it has to be done for them.  The best way is to stop helping them have more babies and force them into personal responsibility.   That's ideal.  If that can't be done, something else has to be done.


----------



## April (Oct 31, 2012)

syrenn said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> ...



In cases such as this..._something_ needs to be done.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What is being promoted HERE is sterilization of people based on whether or not they receive benefits. Which is a far, far cry from what you're talking about.
> ...


 
That's completely at odds with the concept of personal liberty and freedom. This concept that you have the right to determine who does or doesn't have babies based on how many you think they should have, or how much money they must make before it's *ok* is a tyrannical concept.

I don't know where "around here" is, but I don't believe there are certain states that require women and men to cohabitate in group homes across the board, and prevents single-sex group homes from existing. Because for many men and women, being housed with the opposite sex is not an option, period, either because of their own sexual behaviors, or their victimization in the past.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2012)

Personal freedom corresponds with experiencing the consequences of one's own actions.   I am perfectly fine with not imposing birth control on those who refuse to be responsible for their actions.   Stop supporting the children.   If someone has so many that they can't support them and there are children in distress.  Take them away.  End welfare except for certain situations for the truly needy by other than their own hand.  Now we have personal freedom and liberty.

Single sex group homes in California are very rare and require circumstances other than merely being in a group home.   I know of homes just for women who have been abused, and homes for men that are severe alcoholics, but none for the merely mentally impaired.  I once employed a young man from a nearby home.  He met a girl that lived there and they fell "in love".   Since they each lacked the capacity to understand what they were doing, the love was intermittent and not always shared at the same time.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people. You're essentially saying if you are poor, you cannot have your children. 

It doesn't work in a free society. People have to have the option to be poor if that is their choice...using that criteria all immigrants could potentially have their children taken from them the minute they step into this country.

And that is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

You can't have it both ways. You either allow people freedom, or you only allow freedom to SOME people. You either believe it is a right, or a privilege.

I believe it's a right.

And while I don't like the many entitlement programs we have, I don't believe we have the right to punish people for making use of them in a perfectly legal manner. I don't believe we're going to *fix* them by using them to reduce children born to the households that are making use of the programs.

If you don't like the programs, get rid of the PROGRAMS. Don't kill off the families that are legally accessing them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people. You're essentially saying if you are poor, you cannot have your children.
> 
> It doesn't work in a free society. People have to have the option to be poor if that is their choice...using that criteria all immigrants could potentially have their children taken from them the minute they step into this country.
> 
> ...



If someone is so poor that their children are malnourished, take them away.   If the children are sick and the parents do nothing for them, take them away.  Let the people live their lives with as much freedom as they want to have without forcing children to share in that misery.  Especially if the children are just vehicles to get more government money.

We aren't punishing them, we are allowing them to enjoy the consequences of their decisions without imposing the misery of those decisions on anyone else.   

I pretty much agree with you KG, but sometimes you have a very naive view of the world.   The poor are romanticized versions of poor.    Poor but struggling, honest, they just don't have enough.   Their clothing may be threadbare, but they are clean.  A Tiny Tim version of poverty.   They might not have much, but they take care of their kids as best they can.  Surely there are some still like that.  I mean, I hope so, but I haven't seen anyone like that for many years.       When I was six, it took a judge about 30 seconds to take me away from my parents and send me to live with an aunt.   My parents could choose to live however they chose to live, but not impose their lifestyle choices on me and that's the way it should be.

I have no sympathy for the poor and no compassion.   They are poor because something else is more important than not being poor.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 31, 2012)

If these people are mentally or legally incompetent, then whoever is their legal guardian should also accept responsibility for the costs if they can't be held responsible. Especially where there are Catholic or prolife organizations against sterilization, they should be able to adopt this couple and take on that responsibility.

In general, whether people have a disability or not, I believe welfare and medical care should be handled where there are obligations to pay back costs beyond a certain limit.
I believe in offering or requiring training in sustainable income either for individuals to become independent, or for charity groups that will use their renewable finances to support individuals who cannot become independent. But in no way should govt cover these costs longterm as in cases like this where the parents need to take responsibility. 



AmyNation said:


> A few years back I was acquainted with a woman named Susie. Susie has a laundry list of physical and metal handicaps. She is married to a very nice man, who also has a long list of both physical and metal handicaps. Both susie and her husband are supported by the state.
> 
> The issue is that, while being supported by the state, Susie and her husband decided to have babies, lots of babies. The last time i saw Susie, they were up to 4. Each of their children have physical(not sure about the mental) handicaps. They now have a case worker who visits the family regularly, and the state provides a helper who also comes at least once a week.
> 
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 31, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people. You're essentially saying if you are poor, you cannot have your children.
> ...


 
Good for you. The other half of liberty and freedom is compassion. Compassion for those who are not in an ideal position, compassion for all humans because all humans are born with the exact same rights. 

PS..not all poor people are poor because something is more important than money...and your lack of compassion is too bad, considering that many people are poor because they have learned that some things are more important than money, and that can be a very difficult situation to be in.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Oct 31, 2012)

This is why I'll never support forced redistribution of wealth.  If these people weren't being taken care of by the state, then the government could never say it has a vested interested in doing something as draconian as forced sterilization.

Also one of the things I don't like about the concept of socialized health care.  When it comes to a person's health, literally everything you do on a day to day basis has an effect.  Once the government starts paying for everyone's healthcare, suddenly they have a vested interest in regulating any behavior that comes into play, which, of course, is EVERY behavior.

Sorry if I offend you "altruists" out there (though of course demanding that everybody else pay to help the people you consider needy isn't technically altruism), but using the mechanisms of government to "help" people is an awesome way to eventually find yourself under a stifling, totalitarian regime.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists,



So when the commitee for the prevention of Jewish genetic disease advises against dysgenic marriages between tay-sachs carriers, thry're basically nazis?






koshergrl said:


> Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people.


  there is no right to reproduce, nor to rear children


----------



## PaulS1950 (Nov 1, 2012)

Actually there is a basic right to procreate. It is a "natural" right just like self defense.
It may not be enumerated in the bill of rights but it is covered by the nineth amendment.
Like all our rights it comes with a responsibility. Raising your own child requires that you take care of their basic needs. If you fail to do that then the children are placed in a home where it can be done.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

There are no 'natural rights'. There are only power and privilege.

Furthermore, while self-defense can be a strictly individual matter, human procreation necessarily involves seeking the cooperarion (or, through force  or.coercion, securing the participation) of another. A 'right to reproduce' (as opposed to ,say, a 'right' to seek out willful sexual partners for.purposes of pleasure and/or procreation- a 'right'  already limited or.denied in many instances) would be a right to sexual activities and.partners, rather than a 'right' to seek them out.

You have no 'right' to a wife, husband, or.sexual partner.

Nor do you have any 'right' to create a child you will force to suffer due to your own unfitness. Neither do you have a right to a subsidised breeding program to your benefit at the cost of productive members of society. 

Where is is my right to not be enslaved to pay for a breeding program for the unproductive? Where is the.child/soul's right to not be brought into the world.simply to suffer so your.own selfish desires migt be satisfied?



> It may not be enumerated in the bill of rights but it is covered by the nineth amendment.
> Like all our rights it comes with a responsibility. Raising your own child requires that you take care of their basic needs. If you fail to do that then the children are placed in a home where it can be done.


If you  cannot meet those.responsibilities, you lose any claim to those 'rights', just as the 'right' to self-defense can be lost if you go too far and kill a mugger


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 1, 2012)

In accordance with this discussion.  The forced abortion.

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com

With obvious public outcries against forced abortions in China and forced sterilizations of mentally handicapped individuals in Nazi Germany, one might assume the United States knows better.

However, today, in Nevada, the life of an 11-week-old unborn baby and the future of his or her 32-year-old mother hang in the balance as a judge considers whether or not to order the woman to undergo an abortion and sterilization against her will.

Elisa Bauer, who suffers from severe mental and physical disabilities attributed to fetal alcohol syndrome, is currently in the final weeks of her first trimester. The second-oldest of six children adopted by William and Amy Bauer in 1992, Elisa has epilepsy and is said to have the mental and social capacity of a 6-year-old.

This should horrify anyone.   The disabled woman, Elisa, HAS responsible guardians to make these decisions.    The State doesn't agree with the guardians, whose decision should be final.  It's cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists,
> ...



Humanity agrees and recognizes that humans are born with certain rights, regardless of their place of birth. And a suggestion that two people who carry a recessive gene for a diabling condition not have children is not the same as dragging them into a hospital, whether they want to go or not, and cutting their tubes.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> In accordance with this discussion.  The forced abortion.
> 
> Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com
> 
> ...



I was just about to post this. My jaw dropped when I read this article. This case enters the very frightening realm of the state mandating who can or cannot have children. 

I wonder how many women's rights groups will step forward to argue that this woman Elisa has rights.

I wonder how many pro choice women's groups will step forward to argue that Elisa has the right to make her own choice.



* The Bauers support her decision, are following all the prenatal protocol for high-risk pregnancies, and have already lined up six qualified couples who are eager to adopt Elisas child once he or she is born.* 

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> make these decisions.


Able and willing to provide for.the child for 18 years?

What's the.child's prognosis? Can we reasonably expect it to be fully functional and capable of becoming a productive member of society, or are you enslaving  my children, who will be forced.to provide.for it into adulthood and suffer the socia that it brings about as it develops?




> Its cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.


 The state serves the People; it serves no person. It is best for all if the unfit do not.reproduce and further.criminality, parasitism, and the.other social ills they.bring with them. Ergo it is the proper role.of the State to pursue such policies as these, which harm none and further eugenic and social advancement, while doing away with policies (such as the child tax credit) which further social ills and harm all.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > make these decisions.
> ...



Eugenics has been discredited and denounced by every civilized culture.   Even if you would prefer it yourself, after all Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > make these decisions.
> ...



Ah echoing the original goals of Planned Parenthood I see.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

When, exactly, were genetics, epigenetics, genomics, gene therapy, evolutionary theory, and husbandry 'discredited'?

Eugenics thrives in every breeding association and in the Jews' efforts to rid their kind of the.evils.of Tay-Sachs. Why do you think medical insurance companies ask about family history?

People don't like the word, so they changed the plaques. Cold Spring Harbor still works, though, and heritability of iq and other traits is established science.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


 more like Dor Yeshorim. PP and Sanger promited the.elimination of an entire race.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > make these decisions.
> ...



Eugenics is tricky. It is controversial, and has both great potential benefit to all, and potential for gross misuse. I have no fundamental issue whatsoever with general policy efforts aimed at discouraging procreation by those that are likely to become a burden to society. I find it puzzling that so many Republicans are so dead set against such policies, especially since it is fundamentally conservative to attempt to minimize financial burdens to taxpayers. 

So, I will take the sensible policies and promotions of things like birth control, but what scares people about eugenics, and rightfully so, is that it is an umbrella that has included forced abortions, racial segregation, and even genocide. I'm not suggesting you are advocating genocide, but it would be dishonest to refuse to acknowledge it as a potential component of eugenics. Whether or not it is the proper role of government to pursue eugenics policies is extremely controversial, and not a given simply because governments do or have done it. The role of government may be to serve the people, or it may be to serve only some and exterminate others. It depends on the government.

I acknowledge the noble intentions of eugenics, but I question the ability of the state to carry it out responsibly and reliably, at least when it comes to certain types of policies, such as who can or cannot procreate. In extreme cases of people who lack the basic ability to care for a child, or who can reasonably proven medically to be likely to give birth to children with considerable birth defects, yes, that is a genuine concern and should probably be considered on a case-by-case basis. I can't find any fundamental issues with that. When government policy crosses the line into trying to define what is genetically superior/inferior and forcing sterilizations/abortions based on those definitions, it starts to smell a bit too much like the "final solution."


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians? 

Again, my problem with eugenics is not its fundamental intent, but the inherent tendency of such policies to reach outside of those intentions, whether willfully or not, into areas that begin to resemble things like ethnic selection and elimination of races. I am not suggesting that those who have weighed in in favor of forced sterilization in some cases are guilty of racism or promoting ethnic cleansing, so don't get in an uproar. I'm simply suggesting that eugenics is an inherently flawed concept if one believes in a free society, even if it has the noblest of intentions. Lots of polices and even types of governments have noble intentions.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

There is no noble intention of eugenics. The purpose of eugenics is to establish a standard and breed only to that standard.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> There is no noble intention of eugenics. The purpose of eugenics is to establish a standard and breed only to that standard.



That is an unfortunate inherent flaw with eugenics, but the concept is a lot more complicated than that. What I am trying to do is encourage an honest dialogue and perhaps a more cooperative discussion rather than the same old line drawn in the sand with people hurling flames at one another. That may be the norm at US Message Board, but it doesn't have to be an absolute, nor does every topic have to be an absolute. Hopefully you will regard my posts above in that spirit. I am opposed to eugenics policies by default, but I am not opposed to certain components of the concept, such as birth control and elimination of the child tax credit, and that's coming from somebody with three kids.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side. 

Yes, we agree..the inherent problem with eugenics is that ultimely, it's about breeding to a standard, and culling all those who do not meet the standard.

It's one thing to choose your own mate with that in mind..it's another to force that standard upon others. And that is exactly what forced sterilization is. Forcing a eugenic standard upon people whether they agree or not, and it has never in the history of mankind been anything but a deplorable and disgusting mess when any group has attempted to do that, in any degree.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side.
> 
> Yes, we agree..the inherent problem with eugenics is that ultimely, it's about breeding to a standard, and culling all those who do not meet the standard.
> 
> It's one thing to choose your own mate with that in mind..it's another to force that standard upon others. And that is exactly what forced sterilization is. Forcing a eugenic standard upon people whether they agree or not, and it has never in the history of mankind been anything but a deplorable and disgusting mess when any group has attempted to do that, in any degree.



You're right. Civilized discourse does not require that. However, to assume that all who advocate some form of eugenics have nefarious intentions is not exactly conducive to civil discourse either, and that is what you are suggesting. Birth control as a means to discourage unwanted pregnancies and decrease the number of babies born to unfit parents is something I advocate, and which eugenicists advocate for the same reason. While that doesn't make me a eugenicist, nor mean that I advocate state enforcement of forced sterilization, it does mean that I share something with eugenicists, and I must concede that eugenicists have at least some motive for good. If I simply dismiss eugenics and those that hold some belief in the concept as evil or ignoble, or assume only the worst of intentions, there is nothing to be gained. There is nothing civil in assuming that somebody who advocates some form of eugenics is a Nazi.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians?



Nope. Only of carriers and the afflicted


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians?
> ...



You do understand that the point was that discouraging procreation among Jews, Cajuns and French Canadians is to ultimately end in genocide of these ethnicities? 

No suggestion that blacks be discouraged from marrying or procreating despite the genetic defect of sickle cell anemia.   No.   That would be racist.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side.
> ...


 
Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious. You can make excuses all you like about how civilized the proponents of it are, and how "noble" the concept is, but you are wrong, of course. Eugenics has ALWAYS had proponents declaring that the concept is sound. But the truth of the matter is, the concept ISN'T sound, not for humans. The concept is appalling, and applying negative eugenics to others is always a violation of human rights. You cannot recognize that human rights exist and should be defended, and at the same time parse words and support, but not support, negative eugenics.

The most oppressive tyrannical despots have depended upon the *civilized* and *scientific* community to support them in their application of negative eugenics, and they still do. Perhaps you don't have nefarious motives...but I promise you, the people who will benefit from the abuse of this *civilized* and *noble* method of culling despised populations, do.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians?
> ...



Given that almost all that suffer the disorder die before they could ever procreate, the latter is not really a concern. However, those that test positive for being a carrier have a certain chance of their offspring have the disease. It if 25% is both parents are carriers. I'm not sure what the rate is for one. Are you suggesting that Tay-Sachs carriers be subject to compulsory sterilization by the government? If so, how do you propose enforcing that? How do you deal with the cultural backlash? Or is Tay-Sachs not sufficient enough to warrant compulsory sterilization? If not, then what gets defined as sufficient for forced sterilization and what does not? These are fair questions to ask.

This is exactly why forced sterilization as a government policy is a mess. I have enough doubt in my mind that our government has the capability of carrying out such a policy reliably and justly that whatever good intentions there may be are irrelevant.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I agreed with you all along that the concept is not sound. That was my point. I also never said that the concept was noble, only that the intentions of some can be. I don't in the slightest want you to alter your opinion on the matter. Quite the contrary. We simply differ on methodology. You seem to think it is civil and productive to call eugenicists Nazis, and I do not. I don't think it's necessary to fight about it.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't recall calling all eugenecists Nazis, yet you keep claiming I have. 

I do remind people that Nazis were eugenecists, and that negative eugenics applied is the reason "Nazi" is a dirty word worldwide. If you think I've ever maintained that all eugenecists are nazis, you are sadly mistaken. But I will continue to remind people of the disgusting monsters through the ages who have used negative eugenics, and also remind them that the #1 abhorred characteristic was their application of negative eugenics. 

If it weren't for people like me reminding people that the Nazis were monsters, then probably nazis would get a white wash as well as those who just promote their most revolting policies. I point out that Nazis were eugenecists because the excuse that "people who believe in applied negative eugenics are just nice people" has been said before.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I don't recall calling all eugenecists Nazis, yet you keep claiming I have.
> 
> I do remind people that Nazis were eugenecists, and that negative eugenics applied is the reason  "Nazi" is a dirty word worldwide. If you think I've ever maintained that all eugenecists are nazis, you are sadly mistaken, and that assumption didn't come from anything I've ever said. But I will continue to remind people of the disgusting monsters through the ages who have used negative eugenics.
> 
> If it weren't for people like me reminding people that the Nazis were monsters, then probably nazis would get a white wash as well as those who just promote their most revolting policies. I point out that Nazis were eugenecists because the excuse that "people who believe in applied negative eugenics are just nice people" has been said before.



No, you didn't, but your overall language suggests it. If you feel inclined to remind us that the Nazis were eugenicists, you are suggesting a corollary that establishes that all eugenicists are monsters. Whatever, I don't really feel like fighting over it anymore. I appreciate your stance and your belief.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious.



What is nefarious about wanting healthy babies for yourself and others?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

No, I am not suggesting any such thing, as I already explained. I have stated that I understand perfectly that all those who support eugenics are not monsters...but I maintain that the practice itself is without exception monstrous.

I'm sorry you feel compelled to fight an argument I never made.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious.
> ...


 
There's nothing at all nefarious about wanting healthy babies for the whole world.

What is nefarious is compelling others to adhere to your standard, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



That is the key issue that really makes all justifications for eugenics pretty much irrelevant. Somebody has to define the standards, and who is that going to be? The state itself? No thank you. The people? I am not qualified to make that call, and I am more educated than most. Am I supposed to trust such a thing to a democratic appeal? Not a chance.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> That is the key issue that really makes all justifications for eugenics pretty much irrelevant. Somebody has to define the standards, and who is that going to be? The state itself? No thank you. The people? I am not qualified to make that call, and I am more educated than most. Am I supposed to trust such a thing to a democratic appeal? Not a chance.



So Jimmy...  what if the people who made the choice were the individuals who wanted children?  What if, in fact, every child were a choice, and nobody could have a child without first planning for one?

I'm talking about the concept of universal birth control, "UBC", whereby a harmless contraceptive would be administered to the entire population in the public water supplies.  To counteract its effect, a healthy couple who wished to have a child would only need to stop drinking city water and eating food prepared with it.

Imagine...   every child a choice, a *planned* choice, and no one making that choice except the parents involved...

That's "positive" eugenics.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

Planned whether you want to or not.

No children, unless you get approval.

Disgusting.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

Please don't go putting words into my mouth.  



koshergrl said:


> Planned whether you want to or not.
> 
> No children, unless you get approval.
> 
> Disgusting.




That's NOT what I said.  

I said:



paravani said:


> Imagine...   every child a choice, a *planned* choice, and *no one making that choice except the parents involved*...



The beauty of UBC (universal birth control) is that no approval is necessary to choose to have children -- and water-based UBC is impossible for the government to completely control because water is ubiquitous.  Bottled water, rainwater, well water, and  filtered water from lakes, rivers, and streams are all easily available.  

Any couple that wants to have children simply begins to watch what they eat or drink to avoid consuming public water.  That's all -- no approval needed, and many folks nowadays already drink and cook with only bottled water, using city water exclusively for washing.

As I said, UBC is positive eugenics.  There's no downside to it.  

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

There's no beauty to drugging the water for an entire population.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> There's no beauty to drugging the water for an entire population.



So...  what do you think of fluoride?

Sorry, Kgal, the precedent has already been set.  As long as there are no negative effects on the general populace, we will very likely willingly accept contraceptives in our water as the price of ending abortion, accidental teen pregnancy, and drug-addicted babies.

Not to mention, it would also bring an end to the forced sterilization of mentally disabled people.

-- Paravani


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> No, I am not suggesting any such thing, as I already explained. I have stated that I understand perfectly that all those who support eugenics are not monsters...but I maintain that the practice itself is without exception monstrous.
> 
> I'm sorry you feel compelled to fight an argument I never made.


Yes you are. If eugenics is evil in practice, then eugenics- efforts to ensure the health and fitness of one's progeny- are e I'll
 Or 'nefarious' as you phrase it. You're trying to have it both ways because you are not willing to stand by your own statements


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Jam said:
> ...



Negative. Pre-implantation genetic.or germ-cell screenig/in vitro would be a much better solution


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> f is nefarious is compelling others to adhere to your standard, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.


So anarchy? No compelling anyone to comply with your standards of what is.or is not right or okay?


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > That is the key issue that really makes all justifications for eugenics pretty much irrelevant. Somebody has to define the standards, and who is that going to be? The state itself? No thank you. The people? I am not qualified to make that call, and I am more educated than most. Am I supposed to trust such a thing to a democratic appeal? Not a chance.
> ...



It seeks to prevent the spread.of the.unfit. that's.negative eugenics


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Given that almost all that suffer the disorder die before they could ever procreate, the latter is not really a concern. However, those that test positive for being a carrier have a certain chance of their offspring have the disease. It if 25% is both parents are carriers. I'm not sure what the rate is for one. Are you suggesting that Tay-Sachs carriers be subject to compulsory sterilization by the government?





varelse said:


> Negative. Pre-implantation genetic.or germ-cell screenig/in vitro would be a much better solution



Genetic technology is now making it possible to change the genetic makeup of an entire organism.  We are currently developing genetic therapies that can be tailored to eliminate defective sequences on otherwise healthy genes.  When these therapies are implemented, they will be able to eliminate the Tay-Sachs gene sequence without disrupting the rest of the individual's genetic pattern, allowing carriers of the gene to become non-carriers.

Eugenics -- that is, eliminating faulty genes -- will no longer need to be a pre-implantation process.  It will be performed as a routine medical therapy in the case of any genetic illnesses.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am not suggesting any such thing, as I already explained. I have stated that I understand perfectly that all those who support eugenics are not monsters...but I maintain that the practice itself is without exception monstrous.
> ...


 
No, I'm sorry you can't understand.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > f is nefarious is compelling others to adhere to your standard, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.
> ...


 
Different subject, logical fallacy.


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

Yes ,Par, we're getting there. But for now we must do what we can


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> What if the people who made the choice were the individuals who wanted children?  What if, in fact, every child were a choice, and nobody could have a child without first planning for one?
> 
> I'm talking about the concept of universal birth control, "UBC", whereby a harmless contraceptive would be administered to the entire population in the public water supplies.  To counteract its effect, a healthy couple who wished to have a child would only need to stop drinking city water and eating food prepared with it.
> 
> ...





varelse said:


> It seeks to prevent the spread.of the.unfit. that's.negative eugenics



Universal birth control puts the choice to have a child in the hands of the parents, where it belongs.  If parents decide that they are unfit -- or make no decision at all -- then they don't have babies.  If parents decide that they have as much right to have a child as anyone, regardless of whether they're mentally disabled or poverty-stricken or already the parents of fifteen children, they can still have a child...  as long as they are able to take responsibility for drinking only bottled water, or have someone else take the responsibility to see that they drink only bottled water.

It makes every child an active choice, that's all.  How does that prevent the "spread of the unfit", as you put it?

- Paravani


----------



## varelse (Nov 1, 2012)

You want to make it so only those who can afford to circumvent your measures can reproduce. Your clear aim is to prevent the reproduction of the poor in an active manner


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > That is the key issue that really makes all justifications for eugenics pretty much irrelevant. Somebody has to define the standards, and who is that going to be? The state itself? No thank you. The people? I am not qualified to make that call, and I am more educated than most. Am I supposed to trust such a thing to a democratic appeal? Not a chance.
> ...



Actually, that's not as sinister as it may appear on the surface. It's an interesting idea, and not a terrible one logically, but it does have some issues, not the least of which is practicality. 

The additive would have to be consistently and reliably applied to the drinking water, and EVERYBODY would have to have access to it. Otherwise, the state would then have responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. Do you trust our infrastructure to be able to pull such a thing off? I don't. It's a good idea for a novel, but in reality I don't see how it could work.

Additionally, there is an assumption that it would be safe. People already avoid tap water, install whole house filtration systems, use bottled water, etc. Again, it's not a bad idea, but there are some practicality issues.

There some other more personal reason that I don't "like" the idea, but I will leave it at the above and say no more.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

"The U.S. eugenics practice was not a movement carried out in the back woods or by a few corrupted individuals, it was a government-approved and in some cases suggested procedure. As stated by the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation:
_"The concept or term eugenics refers to the intentional and selective breeding of humans and animals to rid the population of characteristics deemed unfit by those administering this practice. In the U.S., eugenics was carried out by individuals, nonprofit organizations and state governments that felt that human reproduction should be controlled._
_&#8230; In the late 1940s, the Department of Public Welfare began to promote increased sterilization as one of several solutions to poverty and illegitimacy. In the 1950s, the N.C. Eugenics Board began to focus increasingly on the sterilization of welfare recipients, which led to a dramatic rise of sterilizations for African Americans and women that did not reside in state institutions. Prior to the 1950s, many of the sterilization orders primarily impacted persons residing in state institutions."_ ​As reported by ABC News, to this day only seven of the 33 states that had sterilization programs have publicly acknowledged or apologized to victims, and only North Carolina has taken steps to compensate victims for damages. While no decision has yet been reached, the suggested compensation for deceptively taking away a person's ability to procreate is floating around $20,000 to $50,000 per living victim.
In 2011, most of the victims have since passed away, but their families are still living with the pain. "

Eugenics programs are not new in the US. No matter how you tailor it, it is a violation of human rights to establish a state run eugenics program.

U.S. History of Eugenics Practice​


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

You do not give the government the authority to drug your water. That's a basic premise of survival, no matter who you are or where you live.

Even Bedouins know that, and better than most. Well poisoning is a tried and true genocide tactic.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

varelse said:


> You want to make it so only those who can afford to circumvent your measures can reproduce. Your clear aim is to prevent the reproduction of the poor in an active manner



I'm fairly certain that all communities with public water systems will have bottled water available at local food banks for all who wish to become parents.  As a Catholic, I'm certain that my Church will insist upon that; and I'm further certain that all Catholic churches will distribute bottled water for free to their own congregations and anyone else who wants it.

I'm also certain that the Church will kick and scream at the very idea of UBC...  regardless of the fact that all one need do is look at any Catholic congregation to see that most Catholics do practice some form of birth control.

The pregnancies that UBC would prevent are the unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.  No more crack babies, no more heroin babies, no more unwanted teenage pregnancies...

No more abortion-as-birth-control.

... But mind you, it would also only apply to urban environments where people are on public water supplies.  Wherever people still drink well water, people would still have to practice individual birth control, and there would still be accidental pregnancies.

-- Paravani


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> You do not give the government the authority to drug your water. That's a basic premise of survival, no matter who you are or where you live.



Kgal, I don't believe that you are either this naive or obtuse.

Of course our government has the authority to treat our water.  That power is implicit, and it is exercised.

If we drink public water, we are trusting our government to supply us with water that has been treated for our health.  It is treated with chlorine in most cases to eradicate harmful organisms; it is treated with fluoride to lessen tooth decay; and it may in the future be treated with other substances that prolong life or lessen the incidence of disease.

If you don't like it, get off the grid.  Move to the country, drink well water, generate your own electricity, grow your own food.

For myself, I have no problem with trusting the government to provide me with clean, bountiful water when I am in the city.  I don't mind small quantities of chlorine or fluoride in my water, and I wouldn't mind small quantities of contraceptive either, if it were proved to have no ill effect on the general population.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You do not give the government the authority to drug your water. That's a basic premise of survival, no matter who you are or where you live.
> ...


 
This is so extreme I don't know how to respond without being offensive. I repeat...the government does not, nor should it ever, have the authority to drug us via the water. We should never have to "pay" (for untreated water) or "move" to be excluded from a program meant to force sterility upon a captive population.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> So Jimmy...  what if the people who made the choice were the individuals who wanted children?  What if, in fact, every child were a choice, and nobody could have a child without first planning for one?
> 
> I'm talking about the concept of universal birth control, "UBC", whereby a harmless contraceptive would be administered to the entire population in the public water supplies.  To counteract its effect, a healthy couple who wished to have a child would only need to stop drinking city water and eating food prepared with it.
> 
> Imagine...   every child a choice, a *planned* choice, and no one making that choice except the parents involved...





Jimmy_Jam said:


> Actually, that's not as sinister as it may appear on the surface. It's an interesting idea, and not a terrible one logically, but it does have some issues, not the least of which is practicality.
> 
> The additive would have to be consistently and reliably applied to the drinking water, and EVERYBODY would have to have access to it. Otherwise, the state would then have responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. Do you trust our infrastructure to be able to pull such a thing off? I don't. It's a good idea for a novel, but in reality I don't see how it could work.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your vote of confidence, Jimmy!

Actually, the biggest problem with it is that as far as I know, no UBC drug has yet been developed, nor is one currently being developed.  I do see this discussion as a starting point, however...  call it a "wish list", if you will.

Yes, any UBC drug must be effective for the entire population it serves.  Because people drink varying amounts of water, with 1/2 gallon per day being the bare survival minimum up to 3 gallons per day for extreme hydration fanatics, UBC must be effective in small, irregular doses without causing any negative effects in higher doses, up to twenty times the smallest effective dose.  Further, it must have no negative effects on children, the elderly, and other vulnerable members of the population.

But...  given that all of these concerns are met, and that a UBC drug is developed that effectively prevents pregnancy without any adverse effects whatsoever...

What are the moral implications?  What objections would it have to overcome, besides the obvious (Catholic) concern that it is "tampering with God's plan"?

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

The moral objection is that nobody should have to take steps to AVOID sterilization at the hands of their government.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

"Britain faces a £30bn bill to clean up rivers, streams and drinking water supplies contaminated by synthetic hormones from contraceptive pills. Drastic reductions in these chemicals, which have been linked to collapses in fish populations, are proposed in the latest European Union water framework directive."

£30bn bill to purify water system after toxic impact of contraceptive pill | Environment | The Observer


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> paravani said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Is the idea really "extreme"?  Or is it just new to you?

Remember... *Fluoride* is a *drug *that prevents tooth decay without any ill effects on the general populace.  

So...  are you also an anti-fluoride activist?

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

It's extreme, and it's repulsive.

"Governments use the poor as scapegoats to push 'greater good' policies
...such eugenicist ideas are rooted in corrupt, collectivist governments who want complete control over the population. The poor that are having too many babies, in other words, are a scapegoat for implementing outlandish public policy initiatives like adding chemicals to the water supply for the "greater good."



Learn more: Detroit newspaper calls for birth control sterilants to be added to public water supply, reports Aaron Dykes​


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The moral objection is that nobody should have to take steps to AVOID sterilization at the hands of their government.



This is simply inflammatory language.

Contraception is not "sterilization".  Sterilization is permanent; contraception is not.

The whole point of contraception is that it is easily stopped whenever one wishes to have children.

Without UBC (universal birth control), only the choice NOT to have a child is deliberate.  Pregnancy may be a choice upon stopping intentional birth control, but can be accidental when no birth control is ever used.

With UBC, it is the choice to have a child that is deliberate.  

No more abortion-as-birth-control, no more crack babies, no more heroin babies, no more fetal-alcohol-syndrome babies...  no more teenage accidental pregnancies...  and no more forced sterilization of anyone.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

"In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: 

&#8226; Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; 
&#8226; The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; 
&#8226; Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; 
&#8226; People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. 
&#8226; A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. "

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The moral objection is that nobody should have to take steps to AVOID sterilization at the hands of their government.
> ...


 
Then you are in the wrong thread. This thread is about forced sterilization. Apparently you believe we must either have forced sterilization, or government-administered contraceptives in the water supply?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

New Zealand has dealt with the issue before:

"
"The problem is, in the department of Work and Income, when you're a beneficiary in there trying to get a benefit, trying to keep a benefit, you are totally at the mercy of those case officers," Bradford told Close Up tonight.
"There will be enormous pressure on women to go for this contraception.
"Steps like this are actually going down the direction of the Government saying 'well, if you're on a benefit and you get pregnant, you should have an abortion, you should have forced sterilization'. I know they haven't gone that far, but this is the first dangerous step on that road."

Beneficiary birth control 'slippery rope to eugenics' - Politics News | TVNZ


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 1, 2012)

paravani said:


> paravani said:
> 
> 
> > So Jimmy...  what if the people who made the choice were the individuals who wanted children?  What if, in fact, every child were a choice, and nobody could have a child without first planning for one?
> ...



Well, yes, personally, I have no religious moral objection because I am not religious. However, I do believe firmly in both of the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment, as well as the importance of upholding the Constitution. Such a blanket policy flirts too closely with, or even goes over the line into endangering free practice.

In short, I can't see eugenics as any kind of practical course of action, and I have my moral issues with it as well. It's just a mess from almost every angle.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> "In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
> 
> &#8226; Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not ...



Nobody cares what John Holdren wrote in 1977.

But UBC (universal birth control) is an idea whose time has come.

We as a society and as a world are facing enormous pressures due to overpopulation.  We are using our resources -- trees, air, sea life -- faster than our planet can renew them, and we are facing imminent starvation and/or water rationing.  Even here in America people are going hungry now, as world food prices rise; in other parts of the world, the shortages of food and water and fuel are much, much worse.

This thread is about forced sterilization, against which I am absolutely and unequivocally opposed, on the grounds that we as a society have not proven ourselves wise enough to plan for our own consumption; should we expect that we are wise enough to choose the best genetic stock for our future?

No.  Only individuals can and should choose whether they are ready, willing, and able to reproduce... and only they can and should decide whether the effort and expense of raising offspring is worthwhile.

Aye, there's the rub...  the word is DECIDE.

Currently, the only qualification for parenthood is the ability to find another person with whom to do the horizontal mambo.  Some males don't even require that their mate consent -- they are willing to conceive by rape.

UBC would reverse that paradigm.  Only willing parents who have planned in advance would be able to become pregnant. 

Of all the various ways to limit population growth, UBC is the only one that would favor individuals who can plan ahead.  It is also the only one that leaves intact the *individual freedom to choose* to have a child.

Ask any Chinese which they would prefer:  forced abortion and sterilization, with harassment, beatings, and torture of family members of those mothers who don't comply?

Or UBC, which ensures that every child is *planned* and *chosen*?

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

Actually, this thread is about forced sterilization, and you can tell that by the title of the thread: "Forced sterilization".

What you are talking about is birth control via the water system, to be inflicted upon an entire population at the behest of the state. It's just another way to accomplish the same thing...target and reduce (or wipe out) a particular population.

All eugenecists think they have the best idea going. But in the end, you're selling a fantasy, and a sick one at that.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Actually, this thread is about forced sterilization, and you can tell that by the title of the thread: "Forced sterilization".
> 
> What you are talking about is birth control via the water system, to be inflicted upon an entire population at the behest of the state. It's just another way to accomplish the same thing...target and reduce (or wipe out) a particular population.
> 
> All eugenecists think they have the best idea going. But in the end, you're selling a fantasy, and a sick one at that.



Given that the Chinese are currently being subjected to forced sterilization to limit their population growth, let me ask the question one more time:

Which do you think they would prefer?



paravani said:


> *... forced abortion and sterilization, with harassment, beatings, and torture of family members of those mothers who don't comply?
> 
> Or UBC, which ensures that every child is planned and chosen?*




--Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

It's all exactly the same thing.


----------



## paravani (Nov 1, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Actually, this thread is about forced sterilization, and you can tell that by the title of the thread: "Forced sterilization".





paravani said:


> Given that the Chinese are currently being subjected to forced sterilization to limit their population growth, let me ask the question one more time:
> 
> Which do you think they would prefer?
> 
> ...





koshergrl said:


> It's all exactly the same thing.



Well, no, it's not.  UBC allows anyone to make the choice to have a child whenever they choose.

The key word here is "*choice*". 

Forced sterilization takes away the choice to have a child.

UBC only ensures that every child is indeed a choice.

It is most certainly NOT the same thing.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 1, 2012)

Actually, it only allows them to have a child if they are able to afford non-treated water. Or move.


----------



## paravani (Nov 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Actually, it only allows them to have a child if they are able to afford non-treated water. Or move.



Kgal, I don't know where YOU live...  but where I live, untreated water falls from the sky.

You must be a city gal, because only a true urbanite could worry that she won't be able to "afford" untreated water.

I suppose you think that stuff that flows in rivers and gathers in lakes is only good for fishing and swimming?

-- Paravani


----------



## varelse (Nov 2, 2012)

She could live in a desert


----------



## varelse (Nov 2, 2012)

It doesn't occur to you that your plan would make the price of untreated water and purification systems.skyrocket?

At least you finally admitted.your whole.idea is to use the.power of the State to keep people from reproducing who can't afford to pay a private(?) Firm to circumvent your measures


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

Irrelevant, logical fallacy. I don't live in the desert, nor am I a city girl.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2012)

Eugenics is part and parcel of Utopianism.   A perfect world filled with perfect people.   To the Nazis anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes was imperfect because they were creating the master race.   There is Utopianism on its face.   The idea of preventing children with birth defects gets bigger and bigger.  Should a girl genetically predisposed to small breasts be allowed to live.  After all she will require surgery later in life to correct her birth defect.   Isn't baldness hereditary?   Sure it is, so those defective boys have to go as well.   

Cultures that practice eugenics don't last very long.  Which is a mercy.  And goals of Utopia go even faster.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Eugenics is part and parcel of Utopianism.   A perfect world filled with perfect people.   To the Nazis anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes was imperfect because they were creating the master race.   There is Utopianism on its face.   The idea of preventing children with birth defects gets bigger and bigger.  Should a girl genetically predisposed to small breasts be allowed to live.  After all she will require surgery later in life to correct her birth defect.   Isn't baldness hereditary?   Sure it is, so those defective boys have to go as well.
> 
> Cultures that practice eugenics don't last very long.  Which is a mercy.  And goals of Utopia go even faster.



Utopian was the word I was searching for yesterday, just didn't come up with it. Like all Utopian ideas, they can never happen because of the nature of governments. The larger they become, the more unwieldy, inefficient, and unreliable. That's not libertarian paranoia, it's simply the way it is. Governmental power is political in nature, so it is plagued by a number of things that simply make it inefficient. Couple that with the law of diminishing returns that occurs in any organization or network, and there simply isn't the capability of carrying out such a thing. It's a fine thing for "what if" discussions, but I don't see how it can go any further than that. The late 19th and early 20th Centuries were filled with Utopian thinking, which culminated in two very bloody world wars.


----------



## varelse (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> .  Which is a mercy.  And goals of Utopia go even faster.



So the Jews will be gone soon?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

varelse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > . Which is a mercy. And goals of Utopia go even faster.
> ...


----------



## varelse (Nov 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Refer to the earlier example of the committee for the prevention of jewisj genetic disease


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

No thank you, once was enough.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 2, 2012)

The larger issue is whether people who can't take care of themselves should be institutionalized.  Right now, the only way this can be done is if it can be shown that they are a present danger to themselves or others.  That is why we have so many mentally ill people roaming our streets.

Since we can't just "catch and release" people back into society for the purpose of sterilization, the only other option is institutionalization, where their behavior can be monitored and controlled.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

We used to do that, but the libs insisted that we shut down the mental hospitals and turn the crazies out.


----------



## paravani (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Eugenics is part and parcel of Utopianism.   A perfect world filled with perfect people.   To the Nazis anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes was imperfect because they were creating the master race.   There is Utopianism on its face.   The idea of preventing children with birth defects gets bigger and bigger.  Should a girl genetically predisposed to small breasts be allowed to live.  After all she will require surgery later in life to correct her birth defect.   Isn't baldness hereditary?   Sure it is, so those defective boys have to go as well.
> 
> Cultures that practice eugenics don't last very long.  Which is a mercy.  And goals of Utopia go even faster.



I believe it depends on HOW the culture practices eugenics.  I want to point out that even now -- and for several decades past -- our culture has allowed parents to practice eugenics on their unborn children.  

When I was pregnant, I was given a blood test to find out whether my baby was at risk to have Down's Syndrome.  The test came back positive, and we were recommended to have "genetic counseling" and amniocentesis to determine if indeed our daughter had Down's Syndrome, in which case a late-term abortion would be an option.  

We were told the chances she actually had Down's were 3%; the risk of amniocentesis causing a spontaneous abortion was only 0.1%; so I did the math and blurted out,  "That means that out of every 100,000 babies to whom you give this test, 100 babies die...  and 97 of those 100 babies were perfectly healthy before the test killed them!  How do you live with that?"  

My point is that genetic counseling and amniocentesis are common forms of parental-consent eugenics in modern-day America, and they won't be abolished any time soon -- nor should they be.

UBC (universal birth control) is in no way comparable with this kind of eugenics.  

UBC doesn't involve choosing NOT to have children; it instead makes the choice to have a child proactive, requiring a small amount of forethought, planning, and effort.  The amount of effort involved in counteracting the UBC should be very small, certainly minor compared to the effort involved in taking care of a baby.  It isn't intended to eliminate parenthood as an option for anyone except those who are unwilling or unable to make some small effort for the sake of having a baby.

That's the whole point of UBC:  to change the paradigm of pregnancy-as-accident to pregnancy-as-choice.  

Basically, putting UBC into metropolitan water supplies establishes a test for parenthood -- where currently the only test is whether one can find anyone who loves one enough or is drunk enough, stupid enough, desperate enough for money, or weak enough to force to have sex without birth control.  The test isn't difficult, and it isn't expensive.  It's simply this:  can the parents obtain and remember to consume only non-UBC water (whether bottled, rainwater, or other natural-sourced water) in order to become pregnant?

Yes, it's a form of "eugenics" in that if you are too poor to buy bottled water (recently priced at 80 cents per gallon, less if you refill containers) *and *you are unwilling to make the effort to track down sources of free bottled water (like your local Catholic Church), then you will not be able to make a baby that would require much more effort than that from you if you were to  give birth.

In that respect it is eugenics, in that it eliminates the possibility of parenthood for the lazy, the thoughtless, the apathetic, and those who didn't want or plan on getting pregnant at all even though they have sex without protection against pregnancy.   Yes, UBC would eliminate accidental pregnancy for these people...  but aren't these kinds of parents exactly the ones that cause so many of society's ills?  People who are too lazy or thoughtless to care for their children, pay attention to their children, raise their children?

No, UBC wouldn't lead to any kind of social or cultural breakdown -- just the opposite.  By ensuring that every child is a choice, UBC would ultimately strengthen society.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

Do you think our society is in a better place now than several decades ago?

Do you think there's less child abuse, fewer unwanted children, less crime?

Nope. The idea that applied eugenics = healthier society is a lie.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 2, 2012)

UBC is good in theory, but probably a nightmare in practice.  Our only other alternative is educating people about the need to get married before having children.  Unfortunately, this wouldn't be well received in many minority communities...


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

That's right, because we just spent the last 40 years convincing people that marriage is unnecessary and even BAD.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2012)

The philosophers who explored Utopianism all ultimately concluded that it must fail.   The concept of Utopianism depends on the central control of the Philosopher Kings of Plato's Republic, to the Planning Committee of Karl Marx.   Each exploration into Utopia ends up the same way, control of the individual that must reach the smallest minutinae of life, until the people rebel.   

What the proponents of universal birth control don't realize is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.   Which means, that if there is universal birth control there must also be forced pregnancies.  The culture will still need workers.  There will have to be a mechanism to produce those workers.  There will still have to be a way of forcing those with superior genetic material to reproduce when they choose not to.    Removing freedom from people never has the result of more freedom.  In Thomas More's Utopia the solution was to kidnap people from surrounding city-states and conscript them into service to the superior Utopians.


----------



## paravani (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> What the proponents of universal birth control don't realize is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.   Which means, that if there is universal birth control there must also be forced pregnancies.  *The culture will still need workers.  There will have to be a mechanism to produce those workers.  *There will still have to be a way of forcing those with superior genetic material to reproduce when they choose not to.    Removing freedom from people never has the result of more freedom.  In Thomas More's Utopia the solution was to kidnap people from surrounding city-states and conscript them into service to the superior Utopians.



Forced pregnancies when our population stands at 7 billion and rising?  You must be joking...

You're missing something here -- something really BIG:  we are currently experiencing worldwide unemployment, and it's going to get worse over the next few decades.  You don't have to be an economist to see that.

*Computers and robots are replacing human workers in every sector of the economy. * Bookkeepers and accountants are being replaced by programs like Quicken; calculations that used to require ten engineers with slide rules a week to perform and check now take one computer microseconds or less; ATMs have replaced 95% of the bank tellers and bank managers; supermarkets are replacing human checkers with self-checking; and the automotive industry has replaced nearly all of its highly-paid, unionized workers with robotics.  Farm communities are dying out because in the place of ten large farms that might have employed 20 hands each, we now have one mega-farm that only employs a few people to supervise the automated plowing, planting, irrigation, and harvesting systems.

The preceding is only a partial list of the jobs that are vanishing due to automation, computers, and robotics.  Anyone reading it can easily think of dozens more examples.

The fact is, we don't need more unskilled workers.  Over the coming decades, we will need fewer and fewer workers of any kind.

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 2, 2012)

Feel free to sterilize yourself.

Leave my family alone, though.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Feel free to sterilize yourself.
> 
> Leave my family alone, though.



The best answer there is.

There is really no Utopia in Utopia.  We aren't all going to be reduced to a handful of humans in a world of mechanical servants.   It no longer even makes for good science fiction.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Nov 4, 2012)

paravani said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Eugenics is part and parcel of Utopianism.   A perfect world filled with perfect people.   To the Nazis anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes was imperfect because they were creating the master race.   There is Utopianism on its face.   The idea of preventing children with birth defects gets bigger and bigger.  Should a girl genetically predisposed to small breasts be allowed to live.  After all she will require surgery later in life to correct her birth defect.   Isn't baldness hereditary?   Sure it is, so those defective boys have to go as well.
> ...



The difference from your first point and your second (parental eugenics and UBC) is that one is in the power of the parent and the other is in the power of the state.  How you missed something so fundamental is beyond me.

The fact is that, as the parent, you are always going to have that control and by rights you should.  People should be free.  Not only is it right but a truly strong society thrives on a free populous.  What you are advocating is giving the state all the power.  The power to set limitation on when or how you are allowed to become pregnant.  Your arbitrary line is exactly that: arbitrary and utterly pointless.  Today, the state decides that the water source is nice little 'obstacle' that you must overcome but when the state deems it necessary, they will move this marker to something more suited for them.  The end result is still the same and it is most certainly NOT a better society.  
I cannot fathom why it is so hard to understand that giving the government this kind of power over the individual is NOT a good thing.  This is the utter rejection of the concept of freedom.  In all honesty, I could give a damn about what's better, cheaper or going to create a stronger society anyway.  NONE of those things matter.  What matters is that I am free to carry out my own life in the best manner that I wish.  That I am the arbiter of my life and its outcome.  What you are advocating is that I give such basic rights as the ability to have a child over to the government.

This is truly crazy stuff.  So bad you cannot even make it up.  I am sure that the Nazi's thought they were creating a 'stronger' society also.  It simply does not work out.  It never will and the worst part is that such a mindset leads to the greatest atrocities that man has ever faced.  I am sure you think it will be different this time because the people asking for it are so much better.  

It won't.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 4, 2012)

The Nazis thought that they were the master race.  That human beings were in need of caretakers and they were the natural superiors who should be entrusted with the culling of undesirables.   This is what eugenics is all about.   Some people are so superior that they should rule over all others.  They are the only ones who should make decisions for everyone else.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 4, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



If I donated my bolt cutters for the cause, would that qualify as "free sterilization"?


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 4, 2012)

This is the candidate for forced sterilization.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E]I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE&#39;S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PaulS1950 (Nov 4, 2012)

Hey, if forced sterilization was implemented for everyone then in about 100 years all the worlds troubles would be over. So would all the peoples troubles, those who were not dead soon would be and population would be back to "0". We would finally have "world peace" and no wars.

I don't imagine everyone would volunteer for it but then people don't usually volunteer for such things. We can just make it the law - through the united nations. Then we wouldn't need their "One World Government" that they keep pushing.
No more taxes, no more illness, or death or noisy neighbors. Just peace and quiet for all the other species on planet Earth.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 5, 2012)

There is a senate enquiry going on here into sterilisation. A mother of a severely disabled woman has told the senate why her daughter should never be allowed to have children. For a mother to speak out like that, the daughter must be very disabled and unable to care for herself, let alone her kids.

We do need to do something to stop people who are extremely disabled from having kids.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> In accordance with this discussion.  The forced abortion.
> 
> Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com
> 
> ...


Sounds like her adoptive parents are incompetent. I hope the court is looking into revoking their rights.


----------



## there4eyeM (Nov 5, 2012)

How can we effectively discuss the 'will' of a six-year-old capacity person certified as retarded? Not to mention the question of how such an individual could have become pregnant.

We make decisions all the time about life and death, based upon what is most desirable for the living. It is hypocritical to pretend that such choice is not made or that it is not valid. Human compassion must rule, but that can be nuanced.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 5, 2012)

Noomi said:


> There is a senate enquiry going on here into sterilisation. A mother of a severely disabled woman has told the senate why her daughter should never be allowed to have children. For a mother to speak out like that, the daughter must be very disabled and unable to care for herself, let alone her kids.
> 
> We do need to do something to stop people who are extremely disabled from having kids.



Choose tyranny

And try not to get upset when it finally goes to far and your life is impacted.

remember; you didn't ask, you demanded it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 5, 2012)

What is extremely disabled?   After all leave matters of life and death to the government and it will define extremely disabled however it wishes.   Object, and that's proof that you're incompetent to make that decision and NEED the government to make it for you.


----------



## there4eyeM (Nov 5, 2012)

Consider a six-year-old having a child. Six year olds don't have any legal choice. Adults instinctively protect them and make choices for them, especially the hard ones.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 5, 2012)

The woman was raped, repeatedly. Children can't consent to sex, and someone with the mind of a 6 year old cant consent to sex.


----------



## Polk (Nov 5, 2012)

paravani said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What the proponents of universal birth control don't realize is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.   Which means, that if there is universal birth control there must also be forced pregnancies.  *The culture will still need workers.  There will have to be a mechanism to produce those workers.  *There will still have to be a way of forcing those with superior genetic material to reproduce when they choose not to.    Removing freedom from people never has the result of more freedom.  In Thomas More's Utopia the solution was to kidnap people from surrounding city-states and conscript them into service to the superior Utopians.
> ...



I'm very happy to see someone approach this question from the technology angle.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 5, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > In accordance with this discussion.  The forced abortion.
> ...



Her adoptive parents can't make a rational decision. They are Catholics, meaning they refuse to consider any other option besides birth.

Her parents failed in allowing a mentally ill woman to go out alone and have sex with strange men.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 5, 2012)

I disagree that being Catholic means you lose perspective, especially when your child's life may be on the line.

However they knew she was slipping out of the group home and having sex with strange men at a local truck stop. So yes, I think an investigation into possible neglect by the group home and her parents are in order.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 5, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> I disagree that being Catholic means you lose perspective, especially when your child's life may be on the line.
> 
> However they knew she was slipping out of the group home and having sex with strange men at a local truck stop. So yes, I think an investigation into possible neglect by the group home and her parents are in order.



Her parents have cited their religious beliefs and stated that because of these beliefs, they want the baby to be born. Notice that they believe that their religious beliefs should dictate what happens?
The woman's life is at risk, as is the life of the fetus, yet they want her to have a baby. They are putting the woman's life second to a fetus!


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 5, 2012)

The debate in the court is whether the preganacy will bring undue risk to the woman. It has not been proven either way.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 5, 2012)

Noomi said:


> I am not in support of sterilising poor people or illiterate people. But those people who need care, and cannot even live by themselves, pay their own bills, cook their own dinner, should not be having babies, and nor should they be allowed to keep them.
> 
> Because you are unable to care for yourself, how in the world can you look after a baby?



You may not be in support of it, but once you begin to allow forced sterilization on handicapped individuals someone else will begin promoting forced sterilization of the poor (aka welfare moms) and from their it will build, before long it will be people of a certain race.

I will present an example.  President Bush gave us the unPatriot Act which was followed by President Obama's killing of an American al-Qaeda (al-Awlaki?) member without even so much as a pretend trial.  Then the NDAA came along and they wanted permission to imprison Americans indefinitely without the right to a trial.  

What is next?

No, we should not be forcing sterilization on anyone.

Immie


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 5, 2012)

I rarely buy into the slippery slope argument. 

I think you can say "the state has the right to sterilize those who have been found incompetent and who the state is their legal guardian" without it leading to mass forced sterilization of the lower class.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 6, 2012)

Ohhhhh,  Simply being a Catholic is evidence of incompetency!    That's the way liberals think.    Of course.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm fully aware of the clean debate zone guidelines so it is difficult for me to express how truly repugnant I find it that people are even discussing this.

I think these arguments were probably thoroughly examined in the beer gardens of Berlin and Munich circa 1930s.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 6, 2012)

Your disgust is noted.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 6, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Your disgust is noted.



 you mean it didn't change your mind ?????


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 6, 2012)

Lol

This thread has been very interesting, I've found myself agreeing and disagreeing with most of the main posters. While it has given me pause, I still find myself where I was when I started, which is the state should move to sterilize the couple I mentioned in my OP.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 6, 2012)

If the couple are wards of the state, there is nothing prohibiting the state from having both of them sterilized if the state so wishes.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> If the couple are wards of the state, there is nothing prohibiting the state from having both of them sterilized if the state so wishes.



I believe they are, and I'm aware of that. However I think, as has been shown in this thread, the issue of sterilization is a highly charged one, and so the state hasn't acted, when they should.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 6, 2012)

I understand the "wards of the state" argument and it does make sense. But it's like you kicked over a rock with lots of ugly things down there that I really don't want to look at.
Gee thanks.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 6, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Lol
> 
> This thread has been very interesting, I've found myself agreeing and disagreeing with most of the main posters. While it has given me pause, I still find myself where I was when I started, which is the state should move to sterilize the couple I mentioned in my OP.



Today, this couple. Tomorrow it could be someone you love.  I oppose government agents making such decisions. We cannot trust them with our tax dollars. How on earth can we trust them with our health?

Immie


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 6, 2012)

Guardians should be allowed to make that decision, and where the state is the guardian, they should make that decision.


----------



## paravani (Nov 6, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> The woman was raped, repeatedly. Children can't consent to sex, and someone with the mind of a 6 year old cant consent to sex.





Noomi said:


> Her adoptive parents can't make a rational decision. They are Catholics, meaning they refuse to consider any other option besides birth.
> 
> Her parents failed in allowing a mentally ill woman to go out alone and have sex with strange men.



It's wrong to think of mentally disabled adults as "children".  They are not children.  They are just "slow" adults -- more naive than the rest of us, more vulnerable to deception and manipulation -- but still adults, with adult bodies, adult longings, adult pleasures.

Let me show you the fallacy of deciding that "normal" people should make major life decisions for "slow" people --


Though I test at the top of the IQ scale, I've had several "slow" friends in my lifetime.  You may wonder why a brilliant woman would choose the company of mentally slow people?  The answer is obvious, but not very flattering to most folks.  It's a matter of scale:  to "slow" people, I'm not much smarter than people of normal intelligence, so they treat me the same way they treat everyone else; and to me, "slow" people are not much slower than normal people, so they seem normal enough to me.

In other words, in my world view, nearly all of you are retarded.  

(Sorry about that...  I don't say it to offend anyone, but merely to make my point.)

So...  if everyone is retarded compared to high-IQ people, does that mean that only people with high IQs ought to be allowed to make major life-decisions for themselves?  And if that sounds ridiculous, where is the cut-off point?  

Do we decide that slow people with an IQ below 100 ought not to make their own decisions?

-- Well, then, half the people in the country can no longer make decisions for themselves.

Where, exactly, do we draw the line?  

I submit that if this woman has even the mentally capacity of a six-year-old, that she is "old enough" to know what a baby is and what pain is...  and that if she decides she wants to have that baby and endure the pain of labor, she should be allowed to make that decision for herself.

She is mentally disabled, not mentally ill.  Furthermore, she isn't mentally disabled due to faulty genetic material, but due to fetal alcohol syndrome -- because her mother drank too much alcohol during pregnancy.  So the odds are that the child she carries will be absolutely normal.

The woman herself may in fact be a good mother, although that isn't under debate here.  I understand that she has agreed with her parents to give the child up for adoption.

I do think that she and her parents should be allowed to make this decision as they see fit.

-- Paravani


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 6, 2012)

She's mentally retarded, she is not capable of making those s
decisions. Under the law, she has no say. That's the law.

And I agree with it.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 6, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Guardians should be allowed to make that decision, and where the state is the guardian, they should make that decision.



Sorry, not when it comes to people without any compassion for the victim.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 6, 2012)

Should every parent have to pass a compassion test in order to make decisions? The state makes decisions every day for these people. The state decides everything from where they live to the meds they take. Should the state have to prove they have compassion when they make those decisions?


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 6, 2012)

Government employees who have conflicts of interests or no interest at all in the lives of their victims have no business making such decisions.


----------



## varelse (Nov 14, 2012)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ceptive-implants-and-injections-in-uk-schools


----------

