Forced sterilization?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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

 

[syrenn]

"
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

• 
  
  
  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]

Remember the abortion parties?

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

 

[koshergrl]

"
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

• 
  
  
  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.

• 
  
  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]

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.

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

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

 

[syrenn]

"
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

• 
  
  
  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.

• 
  
  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.

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

 

[koshergrl]

And that's a human rights violation.

 

[there4eyeM]

The woman decides.

 

[koshergrl]

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

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[syrenn]

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]

"Financial Aid"

 

[Nightson]

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 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.