Forced sterilization?

[Katzndogz]

Personal freedom corresponds with experiencing the consequences of one's own actions. I am perfectly fine with not imposing birth control on those who refuse to be responsible for their actions. Stop supporting the children. If someone has so many that they can't support them and there are children in distress. Take them away. End welfare except for certain situations for the truly needy by other than their own hand. Now we have personal freedom and liberty.

Single sex group homes in California are very rare and require circumstances other than merely being in a group home. I know of homes just for women who have been abused, and homes for men that are severe alcoholics, but none for the merely mentally impaired. I once employed a young man from a nearby home. He met a girl that lived there and they fell "in love". Since they each lacked the capacity to understand what they were doing, the love was intermittent and not always shared at the same time.

 

[koshergrl]

Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people. You're essentially saying if you are poor, you cannot have your children.

It doesn't work in a free society. People have to have the option to be poor if that is their choice...using that criteria all immigrants could potentially have their children taken from them the minute they step into this country.

And that is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

You can't have it both ways. You either allow people freedom, or you only allow freedom to SOME people. You either believe it is a right, or a privilege.

I believe it's a right.

And while I don't like the many entitlement programs we have, I don't believe we have the right to punish people for making use of them in a perfectly legal manner. I don't believe we're going to *fix* them by using them to reduce children born to the households that are making use of the programs.

If you don't like the programs, get rid of the PROGRAMS. Don't kill off the families that are legally accessing them.

 

[Katzndogz]

Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people. You're essentially saying if you are poor, you cannot have your children.

It doesn't work in a free society. People have to have the option to be poor if that is their choice...using that criteria all immigrants could potentially have their children taken from them the minute they step into this country.

And that is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

You can't have it both ways. You either allow people freedom, or you only allow freedom to SOME people. You either believe it is a right, or a privilege.

I believe it's a right.

And while I don't like the many entitlement programs we have, I don't believe we have the right to punish people for making use of them in a perfectly legal manner. I don't believe we're going to *fix* them by using them to reduce children born to the households that are making use of the programs.

If you don't like the programs, get rid of the PROGRAMS. Don't kill off the families that are legally accessing them.

If someone is so poor that their children are malnourished, take them away. If the children are sick and the parents do nothing for them, take them away. Let the people live their lives with as much freedom as they want to have without forcing children to share in that misery. Especially if the children are just vehicles to get more government money.

We aren't punishing them, we are allowing them to enjoy the consequences of their decisions without imposing the misery of those decisions on anyone else.

I pretty much agree with you KG, but sometimes you have a very naive view of the world. The poor are romanticized versions of poor. Poor but struggling, honest, they just don't have enough. Their clothing may be threadbare, but they are clean. A Tiny Tim version of poverty. They might not have much, but they take care of their kids as best they can. Surely there are some still like that. I mean, I hope so, but I haven't seen anyone like that for many years. When I was six, it took a judge about 30 seconds to take me away from my parents and send me to live with an aunt. My parents could choose to live however they chose to live, but not impose their lifestyle choices on me and that's the way it should be.

I have no sympathy for the poor and no compassion. They are poor because something else is more important than not being poor.

 

[emilynghiem]

If these people are mentally or legally incompetent, then whoever is their legal guardian should also accept responsibility for the costs if they can't be held responsible. Especially where there are Catholic or prolife organizations against sterilization, they should be able to adopt this couple and take on that responsibility.

In general, whether people have a disability or not, I believe welfare and medical care should be handled where there are obligations to pay back costs beyond a certain limit.
I believe in offering or requiring training in sustainable income either for individuals to become independent, or for charity groups that will use their renewable finances to support individuals who cannot become independent. But in no way should govt cover these costs longterm as in cases like this where the parents need to take responsibility.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people. You're essentially saying if you are poor, you cannot have your children.

It doesn't work in a free society. People have to have the option to be poor if that is their choice...using that criteria all immigrants could potentially have their children taken from them the minute they step into this country.

And that is antithetical to freedom and liberty.

You can't have it both ways. You either allow people freedom, or you only allow freedom to SOME people. You either believe it is a right, or a privilege.

I believe it's a right.

And while I don't like the many entitlement programs we have, I don't believe we have the right to punish people for making use of them in a perfectly legal manner. I don't believe we're going to *fix* them by using them to reduce children born to the households that are making use of the programs.

If you don't like the programs, get rid of the PROGRAMS. Don't kill off the families that are legally accessing them.

If someone is so poor that their children are malnourished, take them away. If the children are sick and the parents do nothing for them, take them away. Let the people live their lives with as much freedom as they want to have without forcing children to share in that misery. Especially if the children are just vehicles to get more government money.

We aren't punishing them, we are allowing them to enjoy the consequences of their decisions without imposing the misery of those decisions on anyone else.

I pretty much agree with you KG, but sometimes you have a very naive view of the world. The poor are romanticized versions of poor. Poor but struggling, honest, they just don't have enough. Their clothing may be threadbare, but they are clean. A Tiny Tim version of poverty. They might not have much, but they take care of their kids as best they can. Surely there are some still like that. I mean, I hope so, but I haven't seen anyone like that for many years. When I was six, it took a judge about 30 seconds to take me away from my parents and send me to live with an aunt. My parents could choose to live however they chose to live, but not impose their lifestyle choices on me and that's the way it should be.

I have no sympathy for the poor and no compassion. They are poor because something else is more important than not being poor.

Good for you. The other half of liberty and freedom is compassion. Compassion for those who are not in an ideal position, compassion for all humans because all humans are born with the exact same rights.

PS..not all poor people are poor because something is more important than money...and your lack of compassion is too bad, considering that many people are poor because they have learned that some things are more important than money, and that can be a very difficult situation to be in.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This is why I'll never support forced redistribution of wealth. If these people weren't being taken care of by the state, then the government could never say it has a vested interested in doing something as draconian as forced sterilization.

Also one of the things I don't like about the concept of socialized health care. When it comes to a person's health, literally everything you do on a day to day basis has an effect. Once the government starts paying for everyone's healthcare, suddenly they have a vested interest in regulating any behavior that comes into play, which, of course, is EVERY behavior.

Sorry if I offend you "altruists" out there (though of course demanding that everybody else pay to help the people you consider needy isn't technically altruism), but using the mechanisms of government to "help" people is an awesome way to eventually find yourself under a stifling, totalitarian regime.

 

[varelse]

No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists,

So when the commitee for the prevention of Jewish genetic disease advises against dysgenic marriages between tay-sachs carriers, thry're basically nazis?

Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people.

there is no right to reproduce, nor to rear children

 

[PaulS1950]

Actually there is a basic right to procreate. It is a "natural" right just like self defense.
It may not be enumerated in the bill of rights but it is covered by the nineth amendment.
Like all our rights it comes with a responsibility. Raising your own child requires that you take care of their basic needs. If you fail to do that then the children are placed in a home where it can be done.

 

[varelse]

There are no 'natural rights'. There are only power and privilege.

Furthermore, while self-defense can be a strictly individual matter, human procreation necessarily involves seeking the cooperarion (or, through force or.coercion, securing the participation) of another. A 'right to reproduce' (as opposed to ,say, a 'right' to seek out willful sexual partners for.purposes of pleasure and/or procreation- a 'right' already limited or.denied in many instances) would be a right to sexual activities and.partners, rather than a 'right' to seek them out.

You have no 'right' to a wife, husband, or.sexual partner.

Nor do you have any 'right' to create a child you will force to suffer due to your own unfitness. Neither do you have a right to a subsidised breeding program to your benefit at the cost of productive members of society.

Where is is my right to not be enslaved to pay for a breeding program for the unproductive? Where is the.child/soul's right to not be brought into the world.simply to suffer so your.own selfish desires migt be satisfied?

It may not be enumerated in the bill of rights but it is covered by the nineth amendment.
Like all our rights it comes with a responsibility. Raising your own child requires that you take care of their basic needs. If you fail to do that then the children are placed in a home where it can be done.

If you cannot meet those.responsibilities, you lose any claim to those 'rights', just as the 'right' to self-defense can be lost if you go too far and kill a mugger

 

[Katzndogz]

In accordance with this discussion. The forced abortion.

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com

With obvious public outcries against forced abortions in China and forced sterilizations of mentally handicapped individuals in Nazi Germany, one might assume the United States knows better.

However, today, in Nevada, the life of an 11-week-old unborn baby and the future of his or her 32-year-old mother hang in the balance as a judge considers whether or not to order the woman to undergo an abortion and sterilization against her will.

Elisa Bauer, who suffers from severe mental and physical disabilities attributed to fetal alcohol syndrome, is currently in the final weeks of her first trimester. The second-oldest of six children adopted by William and Amy Bauer in 1992, Elisa has epilepsy and is said to have the mental and social capacity of a 6-year-old.

This should horrify anyone. The disabled woman, Elisa, HAS responsible guardians to make these decisions. The State doesn't agree with the guardians, whose decision should be final. It's cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I will never prefer to reduce that via negative eugenics. Negative eugenics are the tool of monsters and fascists,

So when the commitee for the prevention of Jewish genetic disease advises against dysgenic marriages between tay-sachs carriers, thry're basically nazis?

Except taking away ppl's children based on your concept of what you think they can afford is a violation of the personal freedom of those people.

there is no right to reproduce, nor to rear children

Humanity agrees and recognizes that humans are born with certain rights, regardless of their place of birth. And a suggestion that two people who carry a recessive gene for a diabling condition not have children is not the same as dragging them into a hospital, whether they want to go or not, and cutting their tubes.

 

[tinydancer]

In accordance with this discussion. The forced abortion.

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com

With obvious public outcries against forced abortions in China and forced sterilizations of mentally handicapped individuals in Nazi Germany, one might assume the United States knows better.

However, today, in Nevada, the life of an 11-week-old unborn baby and the future of his or her 32-year-old mother hang in the balance as a judge considers whether or not to order the woman to undergo an abortion and sterilization against her will.

Elisa Bauer, who suffers from severe mental and physical disabilities attributed to fetal alcohol syndrome, is currently in the final weeks of her first trimester. The second-oldest of six children adopted by William and Amy Bauer in 1992, Elisa has epilepsy and is said to have the mental and social capacity of a 6-year-old.

This should horrify anyone. The disabled woman, Elisa, HAS responsible guardians to make these decisions. The State doesn't agree with the guardians, whose decision should be final. It's cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

I was just about to post this. My jaw dropped when I read this article. This case enters the very frightening realm of the state mandating who can or cannot have children.

I wonder how many women's rights groups will step forward to argue that this woman Elisa has rights.

I wonder how many pro choice women's groups will step forward to argue that Elisa has the right to make her own choice.



The Bauers support her decision, are following all the prenatal protocol for high-risk pregnancies, and have already lined up six qualified couples who are eager to adopt Elisa’s child once he or she is born.

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion | LifeNews.com

 

[varelse]

make these decisions.

Able and willing to provide for.the child for 18 years?

What's the.child's prognosis? Can we reasonably expect it to be fully functional and capable of becoming a productive member of society, or are you enslaving my children, who will be forced.to provide.for it into adulthood and suffer the socia that it brings about as it develops?

Its cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

The state serves the People; it serves no person. It is best for all if the unfit do not.reproduce and further.criminality, parasitism, and the.other social ills they.bring with them. Ergo it is the proper role.of the State to pursue such policies as these, which harm none and further eugenic and social advancement, while doing away with policies (such as the child tax credit) which further social ills and harm all.

 

[Katzndogz]

make these decisions.

Able and willing to provide for.the child for 18 years?

What's the.child's prognosis? Can we reasonably expect it to be fully functional and capable of becoming a productive member of society, or are you enslaving my children, who will be forced.to provide.for it into adulthood and suffer the socia that it brings about as it develops?

Its cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

The state serves the People; it serves no person. It is best for all if the unfit do not.reproduce and further.criminality, parasitism, and the.other social ills they.bring with them. Ergo it is the proper role.of the State to pursue such policies as these, which harm none and further eugenic and social advancement, while doing away with policies (such as the child tax credit) which further social ills and harm all.

Eugenics has been discredited and denounced by every civilized culture. Even if you would prefer it yourself, after all Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist.

 

[tinydancer]

make these decisions.

Able and willing to provide for.the child for 18 years?

What's the.child's prognosis? Can we reasonably expect it to be fully functional and capable of becoming a productive member of society, or are you enslaving my children, who will be forced.to provide.for it into adulthood and suffer the socia that it brings about as it develops?

Its cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

The state serves the People; it serves no person. It is best for all if the unfit do not.reproduce and further.criminality, parasitism, and the.other social ills they.bring with them. Ergo it is the proper role.of the State to pursue such policies as these, which harm none and further eugenic and social advancement, while doing away with policies (such as the child tax credit) which further social ills and harm all.

Ah echoing the original goals of Planned Parenthood I see.

 

[varelse]

When, exactly, were genetics, epigenetics, genomics, gene therapy, evolutionary theory, and husbandry 'discredited'?

Eugenics thrives in every breeding association and in the Jews' efforts to rid their kind of the.evils.of Tay-Sachs. Why do you think medical insurance companies ask about family history?

People don't like the word, so they changed the plaques. Cold Spring Harbor still works, though, and heritability of iq and other traits is established science.

 

[varelse]

make these decisions.

Able and willing to provide for.the child for 18 years?

What's the.child's prognosis? Can we reasonably expect it to be fully functional and capable of becoming a productive member of society, or are you enslaving my children, who will be forced.to provide.for it into adulthood and suffer the socia that it brings about as it develops?

Its cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

The state serves the People; it serves no person. It is best for all if the unfit do not.reproduce and further.criminality, parasitism, and the.other social ills they.bring with them. Ergo it is the proper role.of the State to pursue such policies as these, which harm none and further eugenic and social advancement, while doing away with policies (such as the child tax credit) which further social ills and harm all.

Ah echoing the original goals of Planned Parenthood I see.

more like Dor Yeshorim. PP and Sanger promited the.elimination of an entire race.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

make these decisions.

Able and willing to provide for.the child for 18 years?

What's the.child's prognosis? Can we reasonably expect it to be fully functional and capable of becoming a productive member of society, or are you enslaving my children, who will be forced.to provide.for it into adulthood and suffer the socia that it brings about as it develops?

Its cases like this that fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the citizens.

The state serves the People; it serves no person. It is best for all if the unfit do not.reproduce and further.criminality, parasitism, and the.other social ills they.bring with them. Ergo it is the proper role.of the State to pursue such policies as these, which harm none and further eugenic and social advancement, while doing away with policies (such as the child tax credit) which further social ills and harm all.

Eugenics is tricky. It is controversial, and has both great potential benefit to all, and potential for gross misuse. I have no fundamental issue whatsoever with general policy efforts aimed at discouraging procreation by those that are likely to become a burden to society. I find it puzzling that so many Republicans are so dead set against such policies, especially since it is fundamentally conservative to attempt to minimize financial burdens to taxpayers.

So, I will take the sensible policies and promotions of things like birth control, but what scares people about eugenics, and rightfully so, is that it is an umbrella that has included forced abortions, racial segregation, and even genocide. I'm not suggesting you are advocating genocide, but it would be dishonest to refuse to acknowledge it as a potential component of eugenics. Whether or not it is the proper role of government to pursue eugenics policies is extremely controversial, and not a given simply because governments do or have done it. The role of government may be to serve the people, or it may be to serve only some and exterminate others. It depends on the government.

I acknowledge the noble intentions of eugenics, but I question the ability of the state to carry it out responsibly and reliably, at least when it comes to certain types of policies, such as who can or cannot procreate. In extreme cases of people who lack the basic ability to care for a child, or who can reasonably proven medically to be likely to give birth to children with considerable birth defects, yes, that is a genuine concern and should probably be considered on a case-by-case basis. I can't find any fundamental issues with that. When government policy crosses the line into trying to define what is genetically superior/inferior and forcing sterilizations/abortions based on those definitions, it starts to smell a bit too much like the "final solution."

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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?

Again, my problem with eugenics is not its fundamental intent, but the inherent tendency of such policies to reach outside of those intentions, whether willfully or not, into areas that begin to resemble things like ethnic selection and elimination of races. I am not suggesting that those who have weighed in in favor of forced sterilization in some cases are guilty of racism or promoting ethnic cleansing, so don't get in an uproar. I'm simply suggesting that eugenics is an inherently flawed concept if one believes in a free society, even if it has the noblest of intentions. Lots of polices and even types of governments have noble intentions.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no noble intention of eugenics. The purpose of eugenics is to establish a standard and breed only to that standard.