Forced sterilization?

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

It could be that I am not entirely understanding the OP. I do understand what you are talking about, however, and I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[William Joyce]

Eugenics was toyed with in the U.S. already, with disastrous results

Which were?

 

[William Joyce]

Eugenics happens when a hot chick in a bar spurns the advances of an ugly dude.

Government intervention to stop that, anyone?

 

[PaulS1950]

There was a similar "court" set up in Germany, Afica and in China. The court was controlled by the government and there is no protection from that happening here.
I think you don't understand. No government should have the power of life and death over any non-criminal part of its population. It is bad enough that the government sometimes makes mistakes in sentancing criminals to death, you want to give them that power over non-criminals?

Yes! that would be a future that I would watch from a hidden vantage point - just to see your reaction when they came for a friend, family member or you.

 

[William Joyce]

Nah, just tell them that if they have any more kids, they won't get any extra welfare payments. The birth control will suddenly start working then.

Sure, but then even conservo-tards like Rick Santorum will start bellyaching that we're punishing innocent children.

I think we could introduce elements of voluntary sterilization: you can either do your state sentence, or be sterlized, Mr. Criminal Thug. You can get welfare, Miss Welfare Mammy, but you must simultaneously agree to be sterilized.

Of course, it will be controversial. But we live in a Moronocracy, so the preservation of morons is important. It's how we get our elected officials.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Eugenics happens when a hot chick in a bar spurns the advances of an ugly dude.

Government intervention to stop that, anyone?

Eugenics refers to systematic attempts to improve the human race by designating that which is genetically inferior and trying to remove it. It was a popular movement in the U.S. prior to WWII, and was largely unopposed by most Americans. It was one of those things that seemed like a good idea, and for which there is a logical argument. The Nazis cited the U.S. use of Eugenics as an inspiration, but in there case for "ethnic" purification.

Anyway, I was simply offering an opinion, mine alone, that I am generally opposed to a system of eugenics because of the potential for arbitrary determination by the state. What Katzndogs brought up is reasonable and makes sense, and I have since realized I may not have had a firm understanding of the OP, or then maybe Katzndogs is talking about something different than the OP. I'll have to dig back and see where I may have gone wrong. Anyway. I'm not trying to take a partisan stand on the subject.

 

[koshergrl]

There's a difference between choosing to be with someone and having children with someone because they complement you...and forcing OTHER people to conform to your own criteria for breeding.

 

[Noomi]

There's a difference between choosing to be with someone and having children with someone because they complement you...and forcing OTHER people to conform to your own criteria for breeding.

But if mentally disabled people are having children, doesn't that mean that people like you have to pay to support them? Why create more people you have to support? I would have thought you'd prefer to reduce that...

 

[koshergrl]

No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists, and it is a violation of human rights to apply it to particular populations..whether they are poor, disabled, a particular color, race or religion.

Republicans don't approve of many entitlement programs...but what left wingers cannot comprehend is that we would fill the gap even if the programs went away. Because leftwingers are so locked into the idea that if the government doesn't help people, nobody will help them (because most of them would never consider personally assisting in this personal manner). It's just not true. It has never been true. Remove the entitlement programs and communities will continue to support those who need it the most.

You'd be amazed if you knew how much communities assist people NOW...outside of the government. You'd be even more amazed if you had any idea how much the state relies upon and refers people to religious organizations to pick up the slack. Caseworkers provide their clients with resource sheets, most of which are covered with the addresses and phone numbers of local churches or religious organizations that provide clothing, housing, food, money, personal items, furniture, medical care to those who ask for it.

 

[AmyNation]

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.

I have learned a valuable lesson. People *cough* KG *cough* see forced sterilization and get Nazi turrets. Thank you for bringing your knowledge of the legal system to this thread.

 

[Katzndogz]

There was a similar "court" set up in Germany, Afica and in China. The court was controlled by the government and there is no protection from that happening here.
I think you don't understand. No government should have the power of life and death over any non-criminal part of its population. It is bad enough that the government sometimes makes mistakes in sentancing criminals to death, you want to give them that power over non-criminals?

Yes! that would be a future that I would watch from a hidden vantage point - just to see your reaction when they came for a friend, family member or you.

No you don't understand. This is not new. It has been going on in the United States for over 100 years. If you are afraid the government will control the courts then there really is no help for the country is there? If ONLY those asinine laws passed by the efforts of the ACLU would be repealed so we could once again start putting people in mental institutions instead of letting them die in the streets. But no, those laws exist so we really can't do that.

These are cases I've been involved in for more than 30 years. I had to get a conservatorship over my step father so he could be put into a lockdown facility. I've helped family members and even interested sympathetic friends get conservatorships. Conservators are RESPONSIBLE for the incompetent person. If a woman under a conservatorship gets pregnant the conservator is responsible. If she's raped, it's the conservator's fault. Even if the conservator is the state.

Is it possible for the Judge, the attorney for the incompetent, the advocate for the incompetent and all the doctors treating the incompetent to get together and collude to find someone perfectly competent as unable to care for themselves? Could be? Please provide some information as to when this has already happened.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists, and it is a violation of human rights to apply it to particular populations..whether they are poor, disabled, a particular color, race or religion.

Republicans don't approve of many entitlement programs...but what left wingers cannot comprehend is that we would fill the gap even if the programs went away. Because leftwingers are so locked into the idea that if the government doesn't help people, nobody will help them (because most of them would never consider personally assisting in this personal manner). It's just not true. It has never been true. Remove the entitlement programs and communities will continue to support those who need it the most.

You'd be amazed if you knew how much communities assist people NOW...outside of the government. You'd be even more amazed if you had any idea how much the state relies upon and refers people to religious organizations to pick up the slack. Caseworkers provide their clients with resource sheets, most of which are covered with the addresses and phone numbers of local churches or religious organizations that provide clothing, housing, food, money, personal items, furniture, medical care to those who ask for it.

Sterilization in cases of gross incompetency has nothing to do with eugenics but protection of the person, individually. As you point out, resources are available to those that ask for it. Incompetent people can't ask for it. They don't take their medication unless someone lives with them and makes sure they do. A woman might have sex with 8 men in one night thinking that she's playing monopoly and keeps winning each throw of the dice. They might get hungry and eat rocks, or grass, or think that fresh dog shit smells good. They take care of children the same way. They are sterilized for their own protection, not eugenics. An incompetent pregnant woman will have the baby in the street, get up and leave it there. She makes no connection between her actions and the result of a baby.
Most of them make no connection between having sex and anything else beyond the immediate act.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I have learned a valuable lesson. People *cough* KG *cough* see forced sterilization and get Nazi turrets. Thank you for bringing your knowledge of the legal system to this thread.

You've never learned a lesson in your life. We already have the ability to sterilize certain people as outlined. What is being promoted here is widescale sterilization forced upon people based upon their ability to raise children..and THAT in turn is determined by things like whether or not they are accepting any ASSISTANCE from the state...such as foodstamps.

So when I see *cough cough* people, like *cough cough* noomi who are promoting not only forced sterilization, but also widescale abortion and lessened oversight of those who commit crimes against children, I begin to consider the Big Picture.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a community in which forced sterilization of a particular population had a happy ending?

 

[koshergrl]

No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists, and it is a violation of human rights to apply it to particular populations..whether they are poor, disabled, a particular color, race or religion.

Republicans don't approve of many entitlement programs...but what left wingers cannot comprehend is that we would fill the gap even if the programs went away. Because leftwingers are so locked into the idea that if the government doesn't help people, nobody will help them (because most of them would never consider personally assisting in this personal manner). It's just not true. It has never been true. Remove the entitlement programs and communities will continue to support those who need it the most.

You'd be amazed if you knew how much communities assist people NOW...outside of the government. You'd be even more amazed if you had any idea how much the state relies upon and refers people to religious organizations to pick up the slack. Caseworkers provide their clients with resource sheets, most of which are covered with the addresses and phone numbers of local churches or religious organizations that provide clothing, housing, food, money, personal items, furniture, medical care to those who ask for it.

Sterilization in cases of gross incompetency has nothing to do with eugenics but protection of the person, individually. As you point out, resources are available to those that ask for it. Incompetent people can't ask for it. They don't take their medication unless someone lives with them and makes sure they do. A woman might have sex with 8 men in one night thinking that she's playing monopoly and keeps winning each throw of the dice. They might get hungry and eat rocks, or grass, or think that fresh dog shit smells good. They take care of children the same way. They are sterilized for their own protection, not eugenics. An incompetent pregnant woman will have the baby in the street, get up and leave it there. She makes no connection between her actions and the result of a baby.
Most of them make no connection between having sex and anything else beyond the immediate act.

Except that is not the concept that is being promoted here.

Syrenn, noomi and others are pulling for forced sterilization of people who receive BENEFITS, as though THAT proves they are grossly incompetent. So anyone who wants to get foodstamps for their kids would be determined "incompetent" and told they must be sterilized to get their benefits.

This is how it works...you make it difficult to get food without vouchers, then you require people to sign up for abortion/sterilization/euthanasia before you give them vouchers.

Remember how Nazis convinced Jews to climb aboard the trains? Remember how they shut down their businesses, then gave them ration tickets, and then managed to keep track of them?

 

[AmyNation]

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.

I have learned a valuable lesson. People *cough* KG *cough* see forced sterilization and get Nazi turrets. Thank you for bringing your knowledge of the legal system to this thread.

You've never learned a lesson in your life. We already have the ability to sterilize certain people as outlined. What is being promoted here is widescale sterilization forced upon people based upon their ability to raise children..and THAT in turn is determined by things like whether or not they are accepting any ASSISTANCE from the state...such as foodstamps.

So when I see *cough cough* people, like *cough cough* noomi who are promoting not only forced sterilization, but also widescale abortion and lessened oversight of those who commit crimes against children, I begin to consider the Big Picture.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a community in which forced sterilization of a particular population had a happy ending?

Whatever you've been snorting must be powerful.

Please point out one instance in this thread where I have suggested "wide scale sterilization based on someone ability to raise children". In fact, i have repeatedly said that's not what I'm suggesting, and have agreed with Katz repeatedly in this thread. You simply have choosen to argue a point that no one else is arguing because you dont want to discuss what is actually being talked about.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

I have learned a valuable lesson. People *cough* KG *cough* see forced sterilization and get Nazi turrets. Thank you for bringing your knowledge of the legal system to this thread.

You've never learned a lesson in your life. We already have the ability to sterilize certain people as outlined. What is being promoted here is widescale sterilization forced upon people based upon their ability to raise children..and THAT in turn is determined by things like whether or not they are accepting any ASSISTANCE from the state...such as foodstamps.

So when I see *cough cough* people, like *cough cough* noomi who are promoting not only forced sterilization, but also widescale abortion and lessened oversight of those who commit crimes against children, I begin to consider the Big Picture.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a community in which forced sterilization of a particular population had a happy ending?

What is being promoted HERE is quite different from what's really being promoted. What's being promoted here, exists solely on this board. Abortion and reduced oversight of those who commit crimes against children are less functions of an autocratic government imposing its will upon an unwilling population than it is of a population gone so liberal that it can no longer tell the difference between good and evil. Then the population can force the government into changing it's positions on just about everything.

Years ago, prior to the ACLU lawsuit, mentally incompetent people could be taken off the street and safely housed. Now they can't be. As long as they have not been adjudged incompetent in a court of law, they are considered competent. This is why every winter the mentally ill homeless die in the alleys of exposure. It's why incompetent people are put out on the street immediately after surgery, because they say they want to leave and no one can stop them.

Yes sterilizing people based on their ability to take care of children MUST be a consideration. The determining factor is the degree to which they are incompetent. Are they unable to change a diaper, or will they feed their baby mudpies? If they need supervision to keep from burning down the house, they will need full time child care. Most individuals with some level of functioning are not incompetent. They might live in a residential facility that allows them a bit of autonomy. Then they will be taught to use birth control and the women will be given their pills, or have their implants. Since we have so many laws against sexual discrimination, there is no such thing as women's or men's residential facilities. They all house both men and women with fully functioning biological imperatives.

 

[koshergrl]

What is being promoted HERE is sterilization of people based on whether or not they receive benefits. Which is a far, far cry from what you're talking about.

And you're wrong about the residential facilities. I was program manager for group homes for diminished capacity adults. We had women's houses, and men's houses.

 

[Katzndogz]

What is being promoted HERE is sterilization of people based on whether or not they receive benefits. Which is a far, far cry from what you're talking about.

And you're wrong about the residential facilities. I was program manager for group homes for diminished capacity adults. We had women's houses, and men's houses.

Not around here. It's not allowed.

If sterilizing people based on whether or not they receive benefits is the subject (and you agree that the permanently mentally impaired should be sterilized) then they should be at the very least implanted with birth control so as to not have any more children. They cannot control themselves, they have children mindlessly and expect others to support them. If they cannot control themselves, and their sense of responsiblity is non-existent, it has to be done for them. The best way is to stop helping them have more babies and force them into personal responsibility. That's ideal. If that can't be done, something else has to be done.

 

[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.

Oh i am in support of forced sterilization on not just the mentally impaired.



Tennessee man has over 20 kids; owes child support to 15 women | WTVR.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3e41prVDv4]15 Kid Welfare Mom: "Somebody Owes Me" - YouTube[/ame]

In cases such as this...something needs to be done.

 

[koshergrl]

What is being promoted HERE is sterilization of people based on whether or not they receive benefits. Which is a far, far cry from what you're talking about.

And you're wrong about the residential facilities. I was program manager for group homes for diminished capacity adults. We had women's houses, and men's houses.

Not around here. It's not allowed.

If sterilizing people based on whether or not they receive benefits is the subject (and you agree that the permanently mentally impaired should be sterilized) then they should be at the very least implanted with birth control so as to not have any more children. They cannot control themselves, they have children mindlessly and expect others to support them. If they cannot control themselves, and their sense of responsiblity is non-existent, it has to be done for them. The best way is to stop helping them have more babies and force them into personal responsibility. That's ideal. If that can't be done, something else has to be done.

That's completely at odds with the concept of personal liberty and freedom. This concept that you have the right to determine who does or doesn't have babies based on how many you think they should have, or how much money they must make before it's *ok* is a tyrannical concept.

I don't know where "around here" is, but I don't believe there are certain states that require women and men to cohabitate in group homes across the board, and prevents single-sex group homes from existing. Because for many men and women, being housed with the opposite sex is not an option, period, either because of their own sexual behaviors, or their victimization in the past.