Forced sterilization?

[varelse]

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

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?

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

 

[varelse]

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]

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

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

 

[paravani]

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?

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]

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Different subject, logical fallacy.

 

[varelse]

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

 

[paravani]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

"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.
… 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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...

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.

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]

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

 

[koshergrl]

"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]

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

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.

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]

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​