Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Should we sterilize in extreme cases?

  1. #1
    Great President
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    395
    Post Thanks / Like

    Should we sterilize in extreme cases?

    I am not much of a debater but thought I would just toss this one out there for an open discussion. I just left a post on a case where a 27 year old was arrested while driving under the influence of drugs and her 9 children were found inside her van, some unrestrained and crawling on the floor. She feels she is a good mother because "not many 27 year old mothers have all their kids." Ummm...'kay.

    Now we read about cases such as these about once a month where someone seems incapable of controlling themselves from producing more offspring yet lack the resources (mentally, physically, emotionally) to raise said offspring. We as tax payers often foot their medical, housing and cost of living bill for the duration of these childrens (and mother's) lives until they turn 18. (or in the mother's case she stops breeding) I have no problem with parents receiving assistance for times when they are smacked by living situations beyond their control but we seem to be creating a welfare state and encouraging people to stay on the system by producing more children. (*cough* paychecks *cough*)

    Then there is the matter of criminals that have committing sexual assault on children or are repeat pedophiles. It is not unsual to read about someone producing children with the intent of using them for sexual gratification. As a society is it our duty to remove the right for these folks to reproduce? I personally know of a case where a man was put on restriction from being so-many-feet within children but this was not applied to his own offspring because it violated his constitutional rights. He later was arrested and jailed for rape of his own daughters. These were daughters he created AFTER the restrictions were placed on him so it became a gray area.

    I know we worry about the "slippery slope" of controlling human rights to reproduction but when does their rights begin to encroach in the rights of the people stuck with paying for their choices? What about my right to pay for my own kids and not some person down the block with the inability to access free and varied forms of birth control? When do their rights begin to superceded the rights of the children they are dumping on this planet yet unable to care for? Again I am not talking about that person who just lost their job/received medical bills that financially devastated them/or find themselves unexpected pregnant for the first time. I am talking about folks perpetually popping out kids with no inclination of taking the responsibility to support them. What number should be the magic number of kids allowed on state support before we invoke the "sterilize" idea? 5? 6? 20? Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Knight
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    IMO-ABSOLUTELY-I believe some people should most definitely be sterilized. For me those people would be the pedo's, the child abusers, baby killers etc. IMO once you have committed such a heinous crime against such innocence you have forfeited your rights-you should have no damn rights. The child they abused had the right to be cared for, loved and SAFE and yet day in and day out there are atrocities committed against children-their rights were violated and in a most disgusting way. When I read about someone raping an 8 day old baby, or raping and sodomizing a 1 year old, or fractured skulls, blunt force trauma, brain swelling, multiple broken bones etc. all done by a disgusting adult that is usually a parent (BF, GF. Step or biological parent) then they should most definitely NOT be allowed to bring more helpless victims into this already cruel world. There was a case years ago in upstate NY where a woman killed ALL 13 (I believe it was 13) of her babies. She had them to kill them. What about those babies rights? Their right to life was completely disregarded by this woman, by their OWN "MOTHER" so why should I give 2 shits about her rights to HAVE MORE?? Someone like that SHOULD NEVER EVER HAVE KIDS! What about Baby Briana? What about Baby P? Who was there for them? They suffered miserable lonely deaths. All at the hands of these useless breeders. And in Baby P's case they concealed these POS identity for their "safety" for how long? What about the safety of our children?? People like this should be sterilized IMO plain and simple.

    Now as for those who just seem to have kid after kid after kid and can't take care of them and just live on assistance because it seems like that is what they want to do? They don't WANT to do anything else-totally different than those people who have honestly fallen on hard times-well that' s a tricky one. I don’t think they should be sterilized as say like what I would want done for a violent offender (tubes tied, vasectomy, hysterectomy, castration-whatever it took to stop the scum of society from hurting another child) . How do you "curb" them from just living off the system contently? Now it's not the children's fault as they were not asked to be born in the first place so they should not suffer. But what to do about these parents?

  3. #3
    Great Count Mystica43229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    1,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am for sterilization of child abusers/killers/molesters and I think it should happen, but then you go against human rights and the argument that people can change. Some may say it may pave the way for people who have been falsely accused of child abuse etc. I think it should be mandatory if: the person or persons are found guilty in a court of law.

  4. #4
    Grand Prince
    Valasca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Yulee, FL, United States
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    21
    Not just yes, but HELL YES!
    "We must all go through a rite of passage, and it must be physical, it must be painful, and it must leave a mark." Captain Howdy, Strangeland.

    What does the Bible say about Judge Not? Read here: http://www.cfirecm.com/QandA/Judge%2...e%20Judged.htm

    http://www.monkeyboobies.com/gallery...3-1/ohnoes.gif
    http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...hno_viking.gif

  5. #5
    Marshal
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think ANYONE found guilty of child abuse/rape/neglect/torture/murder should be sterilized!!! Why give them more kids? It's just a waste of taxpayer's money when cps has to take those kids away and try the parent AGAIN for whatever crime they commited this time... not to mention the needless suffering of innocent children. Just start fixin' 'em like dogs!!

  6. #6
    honey badger MC30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    trapped in my own mind
    Posts
    4,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4
    think of all those babies that could be born and adopted by childless couples. we have even seen it here. women desperate to get pregnant and can't and then breeders like the aforementioned. if she loses her kids to the state, then thay can be adopted by folks that want children. i don't understand the problem.
    Last edited by MC30; June 17th, 2010 at 07:58 PM.
    fuck me, fuck you, fuck my life, and fuck the world.

  7. #7
    Grand Count ImmortalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just this past week I was told to have another baby or stop getting unemployment (by my SOCIAL WORKER) when I told her I needed my medicaid back (I have a 700$ deductible Per Month on Medicaid). I have some serious health issues and I am actively looking for work, good luck me getting a job if I cannot get health care... When I mean serious I see multiple specialists because of my health.

    Anyway, first of all - a person cannot LIVE on welfare. I am so sick of people thinking that this is possible. When I had my baby finally, all we got in Food Stamps was an additional $30 a month. So, for an entire family of 6 we got $240 in food stamps. We had to beg to have a reevaluation and lost our insurance but gained $100 in food stamps. This is with 6 people, and unemployment....

    Also most states have a limit on how many years a person can get actual cash assistance from the government (usually 2-5 years depending).

    Heck, even if those parents on welfare are using the money to get an education (take that four year degree and it reduces the possibility they will return to welfare by leaps and bounds). However the system does not count going to school/college as part of the working to get off welfare and it really should. I'm sorry but a job at Mickey D's just to have a job is not going to keep a family off welfare.

    So sterilizing the poor - no. I'm sorry but I cannot agree with that. I have struggled to be on and off the system for the last 17 years. I was a teen mother and statistically we are 80% more likely to be on welfare multiple or consistantly throughout our lives than any other group. Because mostly the lack of education.

    As far as sterilizing people abusers - hell yes. Abuse a child - sterilization should be mandatory. Period.
    I love my country - its the government that scares me.

  8. #8
    Marshal
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like
    Definitely agree, immortalone!!!
    And, mommacrazy30, in my opinion, the problem is that most of the ppl that are child abusers/molesters/murderers/etc... don't and won't give their kids to cps... or even another relative. Hell, a lot of these people FIGHT for their kids in custody battles! Too many of the stories I read on here include statements like "...and the child was removed from the parent by cps temporarily then returned to the home..." and end with statements like "... and the child died as a result of abuse...". And then, usually, the parent gets a slap on the wrist and has more kids. It's sick.

  9. #9
    honey badger MC30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    trapped in my own mind
    Posts
    4,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4
    i agree, cut their nuts off. but if that fucked up 4-12 kids before that time..um, what is the point? the damage is done...unless you want to go the route of preemptive sterilization? gonna sort out who is fit to be a parent and who isn't? i think we all know how that went.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
    Last edited by MC30; June 17th, 2010 at 10:00 PM.
    fuck me, fuck you, fuck my life, and fuck the world.

  10. #10
    Muttering crone
    Tundratot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Upper One
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Child abusers, murderers, rapists should be removed from the gene pool. If we don't do it by death, then by sterilization is fine with me. I don't think that it's any more cruel and unusual than loss of voting privileges, loss of right to bear arms, or being forced to stay away from the victim of your crime and being monitored by a PO.

    I have no idea what can be done about prolific welfare parents. It's not criminal behavior, so you can jail them or punish them. You can't let the children starve. Can you take away the excess children? Maybe, but do you want these people populating the earth? Can you fine them for excessive [ab]use of the public weal? Can't squeeze blood from a rock. Can you force them to work for a living? Picking up trash from roadways and parks, scraping up dog poo, cigarette butts, and gum wads, scraping the snow and ice of road signs, taking the jobs no one wants? Maybe, but it won't stop them having babies that they still won't be able to support without the public assistance.

  11. #11
    honey badger MC30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    trapped in my own mind
    Posts
    4,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4
    well, we could always become this...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
    Women's rights
    The Nazis opposed women's feminist movement, claiming that it was Jewish-led, had a left-wing agenda (compared to Communism) and was bad for both women and men. The Nazi regime advocated a patriarchal society in which German women would recognize the "world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home."[63] Hitler claimed that women taking vital jobs away from men during the Great Depression was economically bad for families in that women were paid only 66 percent of what men earned.[63] This being said, Hitler never considered endorsing the idea of raising women's wages to avoid such a scenario again, but instead called for women to stay at home. Simultaneously with calling for women to leave work outside the home, the regime called for women to be actively supportive of the state regarding women's affairs. In 1933, Hitler appointed Gertrud Scholtz-Klink as the Reich Women's Leader, who instructed women that their primary role in society was to bear children and that women should be subservient to men, once saying "the mission of woman is to minister in the home and in her profession to the needs of life from the first to last moment of man's existence.".[63] The expectation even applied to Aryan women married to Jewish men—a necessary ingredient in the 1943 Rosenstrasse protest in which 1800 German women (joined by 4200 relatives) obliged the Nazi state to release their Jewish husbands.

    The Nazi regime discouraged women from seeking higher education in secondary schools, universities and colleges.[64] The number of women allowed to enroll in universities dropped drastically under the Nazi regime, which shrank from approximately 128,000 women being enrolled in 1933 to 51,000 in 1938.[60] Female enrollment in secondary schools dropped from 437,000 in 1926 to 205,000 in 1937.[60] However with the requirement of men to be enlisted into the German armed forces during the war, women made up half of the enrollment in the education system by 1944.[60]

    Organizations were made for the indoctrination of Nazi values to German women. Such organizations included the Jungmädel ("Young Girls") section of the Hitler Youth for girls from the age 10 to 14, the Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM, "German Girls' League") for young women from 14 to 18.

    On the issue of sexual affairs regarding women, the Nazis differed greatly from the restrictive stances on women's role in society. The Nazi regime promoted a liberal code of conduct as regards sexual matters, and were sympathetic to women bearing children out of wedlock.[48] The collapse of 19th century morals in Germany accelerated during the Third Reich, partly due to the Nazis, and greatly due to the effects of the war.[48] Promiscuity increased greatly as the war progressed, with unmarried soldiers often involved intimately with several women simultaneously.[48] Married women were often involved in multiple affairs simultaneously, with soldiers, civilians or slave labourers.[48] "Some farm wives in Württemberg had already begun using sex as a commodity, employing carnal favours as a means of getting a full day's work from foreign labourers."[48] Marriage or sexual relations between a person considered “Aryan” and one that was not were classified as Rassenschande were forbidden and under penalty (people found guilty could face concentration camp, while non-Aryans death penalty).

    Despite the somewhat official restrictions, some women forged highly visible, as well as officially praised, achievements. Examples are aviatrix Hanna Reitsch and film director Leni Riefenstahl.

    An example of the almost cynical way in which Nazi doctrines differed from practice is that, whilst sexual relationships among campers was explicitly forbidden, boys' and girls' camps of the Hitlerjugend associations were needlessly placed close together as if to make it happen. Pregnancy (including repercussions on established marriages) often resulted when fetching members of the Bund Deutscher Mädel were assigned to duties which juxtaposed them with tempted men.[65]

    Abortion was heavily penalized in Nazi Germany unless on the grounds of "racial health"; from 1943 abortionists faced the death penalty.[66] Display of contraceptives was not allowed and Hitler himself described contraception as "violation of nature, as degradation of womanhood, motherhood and love."
    how about we just let people get arrested and trust our justice system.
    Last edited by MC30; June 17th, 2010 at 10:46 PM.
    fuck me, fuck you, fuck my life, and fuck the world.

  12. #12
    Marshal
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like
    All I'm saying is at least it'll save some. I have an uncle that had 3 daughters with a woman before they broke up. Once they broke up, she refused to let him or any of his family see the girls. Because she was abusing them, especially the middle one. She was selling them to men. She wouldn't feed them when they were being "punished". She locked the middle one in a fucking dog kennel when she'd take the other two out with her. The oldest one later told us stories about her mom taking her so she could "do a sexy dance" for men. Then, one day she just dropped off the girls with our family and didn't come back for them. So they lived with us, went to school with us, started to build a life with us, and then she decided she wanted them back. So she went to the police and DCFS (who was already involved) claiming we'd stolen her kids. DCFS came and took the kids. We never got them back. They were separated and put into the foster care system (even though they had relatives ready and willing to take them in). So she went on to have TWO MORE KIDS. They weren't taken from her until there was abuse allegations made there either. I'm just saying, if she'd been sterilized after the first three, the other two would've been spared.

    And, by the way, just for the record, in cases of child abuse I'd NEVER trust the justice system. People face harsher penalties for selling drugs than they do for killing kids.

  13. #13
    honey badger MC30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    trapped in my own mind
    Posts
    4,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleMama View Post
    All I'm saying is at least it'll save some. I have an uncle that had 3 daughters with a woman before they broke up. Once they broke up, she refused to let him or any of his family see the girls. Because she was abusing them, especially the middle one. She was selling them to men. She wouldn't feed them when they were being "punished". She locked the middle one in a fucking dog kennel when she'd take the other two out with her. The oldest one later told us stories about her mom taking her so she could "do a sexy dance" for men. Then, one day she just dropped off the girls with our family and didn't come back for them. So they lived with us, went to school with us, started to build a life with us, and then she decided she wanted them back. So she went to the police and DCFS (who was already involved) claiming we'd stolen her kids. DCFS came and took the kids. We never got them back. They were separated and put into the foster care system (even though they had relatives ready and willing to take them in). So she went on to have TWO MORE KIDS. They weren't taken from her until there was abuse allegations made there either. I'm just saying, if she'd been sterilized after the first three, the other two would've been spared.

    And, by the way, just for the record, in cases of child abuse I'd NEVER trust the justice system. People face harsher penalties for selling drugs than they do for killing kids.
    i feel very bad for your family. so you think your uncle should be sterilized? i mean, he only had 3 kids by this sicko?
    fuck me, fuck you, fuck my life, and fuck the world.

  14. #14
    Marshal
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, because he wasn't the one that abused them. She abused them, she should be sterilized. That's the point- you abuse a kid, you shouldn't be allowed to breed. And, in my uncles' case, he was so devastated by what we found out about those girls' lives he never had anymore kids... and never will. I don't think he ever got over that, it's not something he was aware of or at fault for, but I'm sure it's something he feels guilty for.

  15. #15
    honey badger MC30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    trapped in my own mind
    Posts
    4,378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4
    if she were sterilized right now, would it change the situation? i assume she is now in prison.
    fuck me, fuck you, fuck my life, and fuck the world.

  16. #16
    Great Marshal Southern Sin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    The underside of your shoe
    Posts
    270
    Post Thanks / Like
    If it would mean not having to see pics of beatiful little children that have been raped/murdered/abused, then....... FUCK YES!!!

    If you are incapable of using your "equipment" appropriately then cut that shit right off!!!

  17. #17
    Grand Count ImmortalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tundratot View Post
    I have no idea what can be done about prolific welfare parents. It's not criminal behavior, so you can jail them or punish them. You can't let the children starve. Can you take away the excess children? Maybe, but do you want these people populating the earth? Can you fine them for excessive [ab]use of the public weal? Can't squeeze blood from a rock. Can you force them to work for a living? Picking up trash from roadways and parks, scraping up dog poo, cigarette butts, and gum wads, scraping the snow and ice of road signs, taking the jobs no one wants? Maybe, but it won't stop them having babies that they still won't be able to support without the public assistance.
    Most of your "welfare parents" are often already doing the jobs that no one wants. They are the retail people, the fast food people, the janitor at the office, and have all kinds of the crappy jobs. However, even those jobs are not going to get and KEEP them off welfare. Working 2 jobs isn't going to KEEP them off welfare. Teaching appropriate trades and giving them skills will however. Telling someone "Go get a job" is just not always possible in this economy if you expect that job to get them off welfare and stay off it.

    How about we also remove all the ability to procreate from the deadbeat parents too. Since most often if they weren't deadbeats their children might not be on the welfare system to start. Heck I KNOW I would not be on it if my ex-husband paid his $500 a month (for back AND current child support). I KNOW I could have done better over the years if he didn't owe me $21k in back child support.
    I love my country - its the government that scares me.

  18. #18
    Great Count
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barbie's Dream Hovel
    Posts
    1,904
    Post Thanks / Like
    it's just plain unconstitutional to do it against someone's will. i will never agree to anything that fucks with the constitution. i love that document more than any bible, torah or koran you can throw at me.

    i'd say it's less problematic to terminate a person's parental rights in perpetuity, even regarding future progeny... it doesn't involve the government entering your body. and newborns are relatively easy to adopt out.

    if you are talking about "cutting it off" to stop someone from sexual predation, it's futile. the only thing that would work is cutting off their heads. castrated, impotent predators continue to offend, regardless whether their junk works. the bad shit is upstairs in the attic.

  19. #19
    Malignant Narcissist brokenandtwisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On the Edge of Glory
    Posts
    4,180
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    I'm going to have to say 'no' to sterilization. It's morally murky. An individual should not be sterilized on principle of you not liking their actions. Sure, what they've done may be entirely unethical, but no individual reserves the right to dictate the action's of another.

  20. #20
    Buzzkill. Athena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, baby! Woot!
    Posts
    6,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    37
    Forced sterilization. Christ.

    You know, sometimes I think back to the Holocaust, or the U.S. eugenics program, and I wonder how we as a society could ever let things like that happen...

    And then the hyper-emotionalized women (and occasional male) on DD answer the question for me. The enthusiasm with which some of you have voiced your support for such a concept makes me feel dirty.

    Forced sterilization is directly contrary to the concept of human rights. It is one of those black things that mars our history and reminds us to always question the capacity for evil within us.

    The end does NOT justify the means. Potentially saving a few children is not worth bastardizing the freedom we strive for in the U.S. We HAVE seen this line of reasoning fly out of control. We KNOW that we are not responsible enough, as a society, to wield this kind of power over one another.

    And it's especially disturbing when it's considered in the context of the U.S. justice system. People are wrongfully convicted all the bloody time in this country. It's nightmarish enough to be wrongfully convicted alone, but to add forced sterilization to it?

    The very possibility that we could wind up sterilizing innocent people should dissuade anyone's support for this kind of idea, if nothing else.
    "Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"

  21. #21
    Great President
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    395
    Post Thanks / Like
    Athena, where have you been?? I was beginning to think you were in labor or something and thus had gone quiet on us.

    I was wondering when someone was going to throw the Nazi/eugenics card on the table. Someone had done it before you but I knew it was coming. I was asking about extreme cases....where guilt has REALLY, REALLY been established. If a child is found raped and killed and the murderer's DNA is found inside said child, should they have the "right" to reproduce once they are released? And we see how many child killers are released...it's like a child's life is not of equal value to an adults in this justice system.

    Eugenics was basically racism disguised as a "betterment to society" ideal. But I am not talking about sterilization for someone who fits a phsyical demographic, I am talking about established violent offenders/child sexual predators. And I also feel strange thinking of having a child as a "right" and not a priviledge. We have to get a license to drive but nothing to have a child and raise it. We have basic standards for home ownership and hell, even animal rescues do home studies before granting ownership over a dog. But children fall lower on the rung than a cat or even an object such as a car.

    Everyday there are posts of children who've been systematically neglected and/or abused to the point of death but we shy from preventing the offenders from creating more victims. Instead we rally for their "rights" to make more victims and then shake our heads when history repeats itself. It would seem that children are not afforded the same rights as their criminal care takers in this society. We've already set up a termination of parental rights for people who are pregnant and have had previous children removed from custody, why not take it one step further? We've already encroached on their reproductive as far as telling them they cannot keep thier biological offspring due to past behaviors so how will preventing further pregnancies be worse?

    One of the articles recently posted was about a woman who's child was born meth addicted and she was immediately mandated to prison for causing harm to her child. Is this not a violation of her civil rights? I mean, her body, her choice, right? So instead of allowing her to produce more permanently damaged children why not prevent it? Myabe something less permanent like an IUD? (I know there is a fail rate but still the chances would be reatly diminished for an unwanted pregnancy)

  22. #22
    Great Count Angelinfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think if you are on welfare and you want that benefit check you have to have that 6 month shot so you can't get pregnant. This may be feminine orientated but most of these women have multiple children with different baby daddy fathers (who are deadbeats too). No shot, no check.

    Also... I want them subject to drug testing on a random basis with no prewarning. You got money for drugs... you don't need my money to support your kids.

    I want responsibility and don't mind helping out someone in need but I'm not into a class of people whose occupation is WELFARE and STAMPS and MEDICAID.

  23. #23
    Great Duke Aslan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    2,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    I know a guy who is a registered sex offender because he was 21 and she was 16 and her parents were PISSED (rightfully so, actually. They raised a slut. Hahaha.
    kidding.
    Seriously, it's a joke
    No really, jooooooooke.)

    Anyway I am all for sterilization of anyone found guilty of sexually assaulting anyone under the age of 12.
    Snip em.
    There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit ~ C. S. Lewis

  24. #24
    Buzzkill. Athena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, baby! Woot!
    Posts
    6,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by HijabiGirl View Post
    Athena, where have you been?? I was beginning to think you were in labor or something and thus had gone quiet on us.

    I was wondering when someone was going to throw the Nazi/eugenics card on the table. Someone had done it before you but I knew it was coming. I was asking about extreme cases....where guilt has REALLY, REALLY been established. If a child is found raped and killed and the murderer's DNA is found inside said child, should they have the "right" to reproduce once they are released? And we see how many child killers are released...it's like a child's life is not of equal value to an adults in this justice system.

    Eugenics was basically racism disguised as a "betterment to society" ideal. But I am not talking about sterilization for someone who fits a phsyical demographic, I am talking about established violent offenders/child sexual predators. And I also feel strange thinking of having a child as a "right" and not a priviledge. We have to get a license to drive but nothing to have a child and raise it. We have basic standards for home ownership and hell, even animal rescues do home studies before granting ownership over a dog. But children fall lower on the rung than a cat or even an object such as a car.

    Everyday there are posts of children who've been systematically neglected and/or abused to the point of death but we shy from preventing the offenders from creating more victims. Instead we rally for their "rights" to make more victims and then shake our heads when history repeats itself. It would seem that children are not afforded the same rights as their criminal care takers in this society. We've already set up a termination of parental rights for people who are pregnant and have had previous children removed from custody, why not take it one step further? We've already encroached on their reproductive as far as telling them they cannot keep thier biological offspring due to past behaviors so how will preventing further pregnancies be worse?

    One of the articles recently posted was about a woman who's child was born meth addicted and she was immediately mandated to prison for causing harm to her child. Is this not a violation of her civil rights? I mean, her body, her choice, right? So instead of allowing her to produce more permanently damaged children why not prevent it? Myabe something less permanent like an IUD? (I know there is a fail rate but still the chances would be reatly diminished for an unwanted pregnancy)
    LMAO. I was in St. Louis on business for the last week. Don't you read blogs, woman?

    I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with introducing such a heinous bandaid due to system failures. The bottom line here is this: If we can't trust them post-release... they shouldn't get released.

    I have no qualms with voluntary sterilization programs (some have already been proposed in relation to drug addicts). I'd be okay with the courts giving parole or maybe even early release to those who agreed to sterilization. But I cannot think of a single circumstance under which forced sterilization is acceptable. Removing children from custody can be undone. Even termination of parental rights is temporary (the parent can contact their child come adulthood). Sterilization is not always reversible.

    As far as children being on a lower rung, that's the wrong way to look at it. It's not about the importance of the product, it's about the imperitive nature of the function. Humans, like all animals, are intended to procreate. The same cannot be said of driving a car or owning a pet. The argument needed to justify permanently revoking a fundamental right like procreation would have to be so overwhelmingly strong, I don't believe it to exist.

    One must also consider the fact that sterilization is surgery that comes with its own set of risks, death being one of them. We can't force that on people.

    "Why not take it one step further?" I think I've listed a couple good reasons.
    "Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"

  25. #25
    Grand Count ImmortalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelinfl View Post
    I think if you are on welfare and you want that benefit check you have to have that 6 month shot so you can't get pregnant. This may be feminine orientated but most of these women have multiple children with different baby daddy fathers (who are deadbeats too). No shot, no check.

    Also... I want them subject to drug testing on a random basis with no prewarning. You got money for drugs... you don't need my money to support your kids.

    I want responsibility and don't mind helping out someone in need but I'm not into a class of people whose occupation is WELFARE and STAMPS and MEDICAID.
    Drug testing mandatory - yes I can agree. I actually agree with this fully.

    A shot that can and potentially will damage someone's ability to have children if they are on a system temporary - hell no. I am sorry, but I ended up on Welfare suddenly after losing my job because I was pregnant. I CAN'T use hormonal BC, but I am not having many more children either.
    I love my country - its the government that scares me.

  26. #26
    Grand Count ImmortalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Athena View Post
    I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with introducing such a heinous bandaid due to system failures. The bottom line here is this: If we can't trust them post-release... they shouldn't get released.

    I have no qualms with voluntary sterilization programs (some have already been proposed in relation to drug addicts). I'd be okay with the courts giving parole or maybe even early release to those who agreed to sterilization. But I cannot think of a single circumstance under which forced sterilization is acceptable. Removing children from custody can be undone. Even termination of parental rights is temporary (the parent can contact their child come adulthood). Sterilization is not always reversible.

    As far as children being on a lower rung, that's the wrong way to look at it. It's not about the importance of the product, it's about the imperitive nature of the function. Humans, like all animals, are intended to procreate. The same cannot be said of driving a car or owning a pet. The argument needed to justify permanently revoking a fundamental right like procreation would have to be so overwhelmingly strong, I don't believe it to exist.

    One must also consider the fact that sterilization is surgery that comes with its own set of risks, death being one of them. We can't force that on people.

    "Why not take it one step further?" I think I've listed a couple good reasons.
    We release murderers. We release rapists. We release felons and take away their privileges and their rights all the time. Why would impeding on removing their "right" to have children be a problem if they have already been convicted of abuse or neglect like we read about? If a felon cannot vote, cannot own firearms, and SRO are required to avoid children of a certain age or situation - Why can we not do that with child abuse? If a parent injures or kills their child with abuse, neglect, torture, etc - Why would we want to allow them to create more victims? How is the removing of their fundamental "right" to procreate wrong in these cases? We do it to other felons.
    I love my country - its the government that scares me.

  27. #27
    Malignant Narcissist brokenandtwisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On the Edge of Glory
    Posts
    4,180
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmortalOne View Post
    We release murderers. We release rapists. We release felons and take away their privileges and their rights all the time. Why would impeding on removing their "right" to have children be a problem if they have already been convicted of abuse or neglect like we read about? If a felon cannot vote, cannot own firearms, and SRO are required to avoid children of a certain age or situation - Why can we not do that with child abuse? If a parent injures or kills their child with abuse, neglect, torture, etc - Why would we want to allow them to create more victims? How is the removing of their fundamental "right" to procreate wrong in these cases? We do it to other felons.
    The possibility of error renders the argument for sterilization fallible. It's lovely in theory but never a reality.

  28. #28
    Buzzkill. Athena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, baby! Woot!
    Posts
    6,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmortalOne View Post
    We release murderers. We release rapists. We release felons and take away their privileges and their rights all the time. Why would impeding on removing their "right" to have children be a problem if they have already been convicted of abuse or neglect like we read about? If a felon cannot vote, cannot own firearms, and SRO are required to avoid children of a certain age or situation - Why can we not do that with child abuse? If a parent injures or kills their child with abuse, neglect, torture, etc - Why would we want to allow them to create more victims? How is the removing of their fundamental "right" to procreate wrong in these cases? We do it to other felons.
    Here's the difference, darlin' - we can reinstate a felon's right to vote, carry a firearm, be around children, etc., etc.

    We cannot necessarily reverse sterilization.

    It's about what cannot be undone.
    "Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"

  29. #29
    Grand Count ImmortalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Athena View Post
    Here's the difference, darlin' - we can reinstate a felon's right to vote, carry a firearm, be around children, etc., etc.

    We cannot necessarily reverse sterilization.

    It's about what cannot be undone.
    So, what if it is made a requirement of their not being in jail that they need to have the Depo-Shot, that they have a right to free sterilization, that if they get pregnant again they immediately lose rights no questions and no second chances? There are ways around permanency of course. Perhaps not sterilization because of the irreversability but surely something else.
    I love my country - its the government that scares me.

  30. #30
    Great Count Mystica43229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    1,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's not going to happen no matter how much some of us want it to. There is human rights and the fact that someone can be falsely accused. Hell, with the DNA tech now, people are getting out of prison.

    I do think though, in the future with technology, there will be someway of dealing with these problems. I think we will have microchips in our skin. Hell right now, when I go tan I have to put my finger on a scanner!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 5th, 2011, 12:34 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2010, 04:25 PM
  3. Green to the Extreme
    By Shellie435 in forum Weird News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 7th, 2009, 01:00 PM
  4. ! (Extreme Barbies)
    By Death Bed in forum Random Topics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 4th, 2009, 11:40 AM
  5. France To Outlaw The Promotion of Extreme Thinness
    By Athena in forum Three Things
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 15th, 2008, 02:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •