Here’s the thing. I would volunteer people who THINK LIKE YOU as the first candidates. The sort of folks who actually think this is a good idea are folks I’d say we most need to get out of society. So you’re OK with us just putting it up for a vote or something?
Basically, who gets to decide who’s unworthy? If the current government has shown us anything, it’s that deplorables aren’t nearly rare enough, yet.
I have voluntarily done this after one child. Most of my friends have done this after 1-2 kids. We are being responsible and staying within our means to properly raise our kids.
“I got myself sterilized after I had as many kids as I wanted,” is not the same as volunteering to be first in line to let other people decide how many kids you deserve to have.
It may not be the same, but the people who are not responsible, cannot afford, and abuse children continue to procreate they should lose that right. We should not have to pay for the person, their kids, and the long-term drain on society they cause.
Eugenics is one of those fascinating subjects where one can encourage the enthusiast to talk for hours without limit after backing out and fastening the door after.
You need to show some better evidence (starting with any evidence at all) that coerced sterilization would be better than non-coercive means at solving actual problems.
If poor people don’t want any more kids than they’ve already got, we can and should make effective reproductive control readily and freely available to them. (I trust, by the way, since this issue is apparently so important to you, that you’ve been standing up in protest against the defunding of Planned Parenthood?)
If parents, poor or otherwise, are abusing their children, we can and should remove the children from their control, via mandatory reporting and CPS etc.
If young people, poor or otherwise, aren’t sufficiently aware of the importance or proper use of birth control, we can and should provide them with better education about it.
If we can solve the problem of people having more children than they really want, that will be time enough to see if we’ve really got a problem of significant numbers of people actively seeking to have children in order to abuse them. I strongly distrust arguments in favor of forced prevention of reproduction while our society is still doing such a shitty job of supporting voluntary prevention of reproduction.
Says who, though? Again, different people are going to put different things in for those ellipsis. People who have large families for religious reasons and raise their children believing in the wrong god…they’ve got to go, right? How about ones that raise their children vegetarian? Or don’t get them vaccinated? Or vote Republican? Or have the wrong skin color? Or have multiple gay kids…
Unfortunately, people can abuse kids, have them removed, and still have more kids.
Wow, reaching a bit?
It is usually a bad argument to say that because I was wrong about one thing in history, I could not be correct about another thing in history but in your version of history, when did Zionism begin because pogroms as we understand them today seem to have begun in the 1880s?
Here is the definition of pogrom from wikipedia which refers to the Russian pogroms. Pogrom - Wikipedia
These didn’t start until the 1880s. There was a mass murder of news.
“The term “pogrom” became commonly used in English after a large-scale wave of anti-Jewish riots swept through south-western Imperial Russia (present-day Ukraine and Poland) from 1881 to 1884; during this time, more than 200 anti-Jewish events occurred in the Russian Empire, notably pogroms in Kiev, Warsaw and Odessa.[3]”
This off topic comment is basically just an attempt to bring up the fact that I am a Palestinian sympathizer and a critic of Israel which instantly makes me Hitler and Osama bin Laden combined.
Do you have a cite that eugenis always ends up in genocide? Because you say that like its a fact and not just your opinion.
Hey, I was just bringing up your silly historical ideas. If you want to self-identify with Hitler and bin Laden, more power to you, but I didn’t and wouldn’t make that comparison.
They can, sure, but is there any evidence that a significant number of them are, to the extent of causing a significant social problem? What percentage of abusive parents went on to produce and abuse additional children after being outed and punished as abusers? On what grounds are we claiming that this problem is severe enough to justify sterilizing individuals against their will and without their consent?
Like I said, I am very suspicious of calls for coercive/punitive measures as allegedly necessary solutions to problems where we haven’t even managed to get our ducks in a row on non-coercive solutions. Sadly, that is often a hallmark of bigots and sadists who don’t really care so much about fixing a problem as about using the problem as an excuse to enjoy the power to control and punish people they don’t like.
I am no fan of child abusers, and if we know someone’s a child abuser I say we should keep an eye on them, but that doesn’t mean that we’re entitled to make holes in their bodies and mess with their organs without their consent.
But, again, if we offer cash incentives to people who opt for self-sterilization, then it would be relevant to say “I chose to get sterilized when I thought it made sense.”
Let’s let these people continue to procreate. Actual numbers will be difficult to gather due to family court protections. Regardless if it is pure abuse or neglect due to poverty, there need to be limits on reproductive Rights.
Society should not have to pay for having an underdeveloped feral kid. We shouldn’t have to pay thousands of dollars per year to each kid that is born to no/poor planning.
Even if it is a small number of kids that don’t have to endure poverty or abuse, it is a good thing.
:rolleyes: You realize that you’re calling for forced sterilization for a man and a woman of 39 and 30 years of age respectively who have been sentenced respectively to 65 and 43 years in prison for criminal abuse, right?
This couple are not going to be having any more children (thank goodness) because they’ll be in jail. Their reproductive rights are going to be severely limited as a natural (and richly deserved) consequence of having all their rights severely limited. Due to the, you know, being in jail thing. No nonconsensual surgery is required.
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
Society should not have to pay for having an underdeveloped feral kid.
[/quote]
How is society supposed to know in advance which individuals are going to turn out to be incestuous abusers who produce “underdeveloped feral kids”? How would a sterilization policy have targeted these perpetrators until they’d already reproduced?
Your example is a stellar argument for more and better family caseworkers monitoring the well-being of children who already exist. It is a completely shitty argument for a policy of forced sterilization.
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
We shouldn’t have to pay thousands of dollars per year to each kid that is born to no/poor planning.
[/quote]
Planning? You’re under the impression that this horrific case of parental abuse can be set down to lack of planning? That’s what we’re supposed to sterilize people for?
[QUOTE=UCBearcats]
Even if it is a small number of kids that don’t have to endure poverty or abuse, it is a good thing.
[/QUOTE]
Poverty? You’re trying to claim that we should sterilize people just because their kids might be poor? That family poverty is comparable to actual child abuse, and should be punished in the same way with nonconsensual sterilization?
You are either really not thinking this through, or simply attempting to use isolated cases of actual horrific criminal abuse as a false justification for forcing nonconsensual surgery on non-criminals simply for “lack of planning” or “being poor”.
No. Hell, no. Criminal abusers should be thrown in jail and subsequently watched to make sure they don’t victimize children again. Abused children should be taken away from their abusers and cared for. Poor and struggling parents who are not abusive should be helped in voluntarily limiting the size of their families and caring for the children they already have. None of this requires any forced sterilization of anybody.
Most of this sort of stuff is pure ressentiment at po’ undeserving folk* *living off the hard-earned monies of the tax-payer, who gets nothing, nothing, for his or her hard work.
Therefore the undeserving, who are lazy, weak and useless, must go back to how it was in the halcyon days in the sewers and slums before a mawkish nanny-state ended that relentless toll, and sink or swim. And if you can’t remove them quicker, you can stop the vermin from reproducing.
Plus a lot of stuff about purity.
So when the welfare queen pops out more and more kids and keeps getting her government check nothing should change? If she wants 6, 7, 8, or more kids with no baby daddy in sight it is ok?
The guy who doesn’t like rubbers and can’t pull out quickly enough should keep procreating even though the check from Burger King gets split 5 ways to cover support.
There is a point when enough is enough. We have other laws in place to protect people from themself. I can’t buy lawn darts since morons threw them straight up or at each other. We force people to wear helmets and seatbelts in most places,
The data on abuse and the cost to society is staggering. There is a strong correlation between poverty and abuse.
http://wcmswp.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/consequences.html
Then maybe we should look at fixing that first thing. Poor kids, with a substandard diet and/or turbulent domestic situation, are more likely to fare poorly in school, which would likely lead them toward more poverty and sexual/reproductive choices based on their faulty education, in a never ending cycle. Sterilizing them so that they do not over-reproduce looks like a half-assed solution. Adjusting the economic landscape to reduce poverty seems like it would be the more effective long-term approach for everyone.
How do you change the economic landscape without throwing good money after bad?
People with low IQ, birth defects, poor education, mentally challenged and mental illness are forced sterilization? I thought modern scientists prove Hitler wrong? Not every thing is genetics to the cause of it. If that case than sterilization will not really do any thing.
Hitler thought every thing was genetics to weed out bad genes to have pure society with no birth defects,no poor education, no mentally challenged and no mental illness. If that case than sterilization will not really do any thing.
And IQ and poor education not always genetics but other factors like good education when one is young.