Forced sterilization?

[del]

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.

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

Only if you think the law is always right.

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

you're getting more stupid by the minute.

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[April]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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?

There you go. You answered your own question.

 

[AmyNation]

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?

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

There you go. You answered your own question.

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]

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.

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?

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

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]

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?

There you go. You answered your own question.

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...

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]

There you go. You answered your own question.

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...

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.

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]

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?

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

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?

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]

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.

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]

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

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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...

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.