A discussion of the Bell case:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=39&search=&matches
Not one of VA’s greatest moments.
The cite is long gone, unfortunately, but last year there was an article about a woman with a son in his thirties who was mentally unstable, aggressive, and unable to control many of his impulses.
She was in the awful position of having to decide whether to have him sterilized. She was worried that his aggression combined with his sexual impulses combined with his lack of self-control meant that the chances of his raping someone were pretty high. And of course she had all the concerns about eugenics and human rights - as would a mother who loved her child.
What would you do if you were her?
Sterilize him and hope for the best.
I must have missed that part of client responsibilities in all the forms. I’m a little confused though. The SSI payment I get each month doesn’t even cover my rent. I have to borow from the folks just to pay rent and utilities.* How does the government expect me to have the funds to go out and meet women?
Hmm.
Guin- You’re an animal loving, RenFesting, Star Wars geek with OCD right? Ya wanna get together and produce some idiotic malcontents? Will you be the Czarina to my Rasputin? The Guinivere to my Lancelot? The 3PO to my R2?
- I’m accessing the net by using a longterm MSN contract my Dad accidentally signed up for through a rebate deal on the last computer he bought. It’s unlimited hours. The access number is a local call. I’m using a computer a friend was going to throw out becuase it was too old to have any value as a trade in.
The tough part about it is where to draw the line…
One person might be obviously incapable of raising a child and unable to consent to sex.
The next person might be closer to being able to do these things, but still not there.
The next one may be able to cope, just not as well as the rest of us.
This idea of sterilization is dangerous business.
Don’t be foolish whiterabbit. He is obviously talking about people who are so mentaly handicapped as to be incapable of being responsible for themselves.
This is not to say that this woman’s pregnancy and birth were a good thing, but at least they provide clear proof that there was a rapist preying on this woman (and possibly other women as well).
Julie
Yes exactly.
This particular woman is not capable of making any kind of decisons on her own. She can’t function on her own. She is an award of the state.
I got upset and hadn’t entirely woken up yet. My apologies.
I still sense a dangerous slippery slope in the argument, though. Once you start removing certain types of people, it could get easier to broaden the definitions.
But isn’t this decision already being made when it comes to who is allowed to remain in custody of a child?
If the courts already decide who may keep a child, is that much different than the courts saying who may not conceive one? I’m not saying there is no difference, but is there significant difference?
Julie
Was she deciding whether to sterilize him (so he could have sex, but couldn’t impregnate anyone) or castrate him (so he couldn’t have sex, and therefore couldn’t rape anyone)? Big difference.
-
I would imagine that most people unable to consent to sex are also unable to make their own medical decisions. Presumably they have a guardian, court authorized to consent to medical procedures and so forth.
-
I would think that seeking out or agreeing to sterilization would be a perfectly reasonable thing for the legal guardian to do.
Other people already answered Isabelle’s question for me. There are forms of contraception that last for years (and presumably, the legal guardian of someone with the disabilities we’re talking about could take care of this end).
Yes, there is. If a court rules that a parent cannot take care of a child, it has to be based on something, like performance as a parent, or the reasonable belief that her disability would leave her unable to raise the child. I’d much prefer that to laws saying that all people with certain disabilities, IQs below certain levels, etc. have to be sterilized.
a dubious honor, I’m sure.
But if the decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, is there a significant difference between “you will not be a fit parent and therefore your child will be removed from your custody” and “you will not be a fit parent and therefore your ability to have children will be curtailed”?
In other words, there are lines already being drawn about a person’s fitness to parent.
Julie
Yes, the state clearly does make those decisions already. Too bad that has to be the case, but sometimes children need to be protected that way.
I think there is. If the government has to protect a child and can make a case that it’s necessary, I think they’re entitled to do so. I do NOT think they’re entitled to decide who can and cannot have children. And like I said, it DOES matter to me that the state not pass sweeping rules preventing groups of people from having children.
If we were talking about long term, reversable, contraception that’s much easier to stomach. Sterilization is a permanent surgical procedure, and does not allow changes should the person’s circumstances change.
You would think that managing it in court on a case by case basis is ok, but seeing how random some court decisions are, I don’t trust them.
That depends on whether you mean forced contraception or permanent sterilization.
The court may remove a child “You are not at this time a fit parent. Therefore, your child will be removed from your custody.”
But, “If in the future you can demonstrate that you have become fit to care for a child, custody will be returned to you.”
Sterilization would be “You are not at this time a fit parent. Therefore, your ability to ever have children will be removed.”
That’s true, but waiting until the pregnancy happens means that there is a pregnant woman, a victim of rape, who cannot consent to having an abortion, cannot consent to carrying on the pregnancy, and cannot be a parent.
If we have a person who would necessarily lose custody of any child she would bear, then sterilization would prevent the woman from having one of two ugly outcomes forced on her in the event she conceives (and doesn’t miscarry). I would be extremely uneasy about forcing a woman who will necessarily lose custody of any child she bore into either abortion or childbirth. Yes, sterilization would prevent her from a certain amount of freedom. That is absolutely undeniable. And what is also undeniable is that sterilization would be unnecessary in many cases. Many such women would never be in any danger of being raped.
But if we have a woman who is not going to be permitted to keep her child, is it kinder to let her conceive it?
And like I said, a sweeping rule would be anathema to me. But I think there would be times when it would be protective of the woman to be sterilized, if and only if she would never be permitted to keep her child, which should mean her functioning would be at a level that precludes consent to sex, abortion, or childbirth/adoption.
Now, there may be a very good reason this shouldn’t be permitted. I’m working this out as we go.
Julie
Very true, which means at the very least that this should only even be considered for women who suffer from a permanent condition.
And the “forced” part is important, too. I would consider this absolutely heinous if sterilization were carried out on any woman capable of consent who did not consent to sterilization. So, anyone pushing for sterilization should have to demonstrate (though I’m unsure precisely how) that the woman is incapable of consent and would always be incapable of consent.
I know that “consent” is still arbitrary, but it’s definitely something courts already have to handle.
Julie