Forced sterilization?

[koshergrl]

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

 

[TruthSeeker56]

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.

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

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

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

 

[there4eyeM]

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

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

How about we just don’t give aid past the first two. What is the point of even putting in the asinine requirement that you get serialized. Simple, don’t provide the aid.

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


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


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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

 

[AmyNation]

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

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

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

 

[AmyNation]

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.

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

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

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

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

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

 

[AmyNation]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AmyNation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PaulS1950]

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

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

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

 

[varelse]

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

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

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

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

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

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

 

[PaulS1950]

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

Please don't confuse indigent with incompetent.