Along with 31 other states, North Carolina had a eugenics program and sterilized people deemed “unworthy” of reproducing, from 1933 to 1977. Now they’re discussing some sort of financial compensation for the victims (or the estates of deceased victims) to the tune of $20,000 or more.
How on earth does one come up with a dollar amount? Would a man be entitled to the same compensation as a woman, or a woman sterilized after having five children compensated the same amount as a woman sterilized before having any children? Let’s say the state decides to give each person $30,000, but subtracts a few grand for each child the person did have. Well - they can’t do that, surely. That would be putting a price of a few thousand dollars on each child. And what if the woman who had the five children mentioned in the quote had those children rightfully taken away from her for for neglect or abuse and they grew up in foster homes or as “wards of the state” - does she still get the cash?
Perhaps a woman sterilized at 14 years old would have died in childbirth at 18, had she become pregnant. So theoretically, the procedure could have saved her life. A man may have fathered several children, then shortly thereafter been incarcerated for life and never had the opportunity (or will) to be a functioning father. Or the person sterilized would have been an abusive, neglectful parent. Or they may never have wanted children, or been incapable of having them anyway.
On the other hand, some of these sterilized people may have been excellent parents, theoretically raising children who contributed a lot to society. We’d never know, of course - but is this a good enough reason to make a fairly large cash settlement to each and every one of them?
I can’t wrap my head around how this could be done fairly - or even if it should be done at all. It was an abhorrent and awful thing for states to do, but I don’t see how cash settlements are going to make it right. Or perhaps I’m missing something fundamental here, and there’s good reason to compensate these people. But then - how much, and does everyone get the same amount?
Basically, if the state did something wrong in the past and then decides for recompensation to a large group of people, the big importance is the symbolic gesture. Even if every victim gets only 1 000 dollars, it still is a public acknowledgment “We did wrong and have recognized it and are sorry. If we could go back, we would do different.” Giving money means more than just a spoken apology because money hurts when giving it.
Second, the question isn’t whether a girl would have died in childbirth otherwise, or the value of children already born vs. none born. To compare, the compensation paid to survivors of the forced labour in WWII should be high enough that these elderly people can live moderatly well from it, esp. because they often don’t get other pensions, but suffered serious medical long-term problems because of the forced labour.
So the question isn’t how to assess damage that can’t be measured, but the measurable medical problems that did occur and either required medical treatments in the interim, or are still a problem today - say if the aftereffects for some women are bleeding or zyst treatment or whatever. So the costs of that treatment, or the counselling sessions from a therapist, can be calculated. If somebody was so crippelled that she couldn’t work anymore, then a pension she can live on can be calculated. Etc.
I agree with constanze. The purpose of reparations for crimes against humanity is not to give a dollar-for-dollar match of something taken away from the victims, but rather for the government to acknowledge its wrongdoing. While it is worthwhile for the government to issue formal apologies, conduct investigations into the source of the wrongdoing, and publicize it in hopes that the publicity will help prevent similar crimes from happening in the future, money is the language that governments understand best.
But it hurts the wrong people. The “we” who did wrong aren’t the “we” who are making the apology, and neither of them are the “we” who are being made to foot the bill.
I don’t want to sound like a dick but I am not entirely agains tthe notion of chemical sterilization after you have your first child unless you can show you can support a second or third child.
Eugenics didn’t have this horrible reputation until it became associated with the Nazis.
True. A relative of mine died in childbirth, but who would of ever known that THIS ONE would be the one that would kill her? After all, her mother survived having several kids.
I have to agree with this to some extent. I’m all about trying to make reparations, but there comes a point beyond which any attempt to do so will end up just throwing things more out of balance than they’ve managed to get back into. To a certain extent, regardless of whether or not those responsible are alive and pay or not, it is still an evil that our society created so, sins of the father and all that.
That said, even if “we” are the ones who did it, it may still be a meaningful gesture to show how far we’ve come to provide care or compensating for already provided care for anyone still alive and whose issues are traceable to their sterilization under such programs.
And what is wrong with the notion of limiting (not eliminating) reproduction for those who cannot support their children? Would it make a difference to you if the limit was two instead of one?
Is the right to reproduction so inviolate that we cannot lift a finger to regulate who reproduces and how often? Does it matter if society is going to be asked to bear the cost of caring for severely disabled children?
We seem to be running out of alternatives. If we’re very lucky, education and raised standards of living will halt population growth, and better technology will increase food supply, but even then we’d still have climate change to worry about.
‘Eugenics’ is not the same thing as ‘government control of reproduction’, and AFAICT DA was not advocating the former.
I would prefer to reserve such an epithet for anyone who enjoys the suffering caused by war and famine, and thinks we should have more of it.
I’m rubbing my chin on this conversation as well. My first cousin is mentally retarded. That’s what his parents and our whole family say about his situation. He is in a community where they have taught him how to cook and clean for himself, but if anything complicated happens, staff is there to intervene.
He has a girlfriend. He is 40 and she is 26.
Now, does anyone think that they should have a child? I’m not for eugenics, but my cousin cannot be a father, and his girlfriend cannot be a mother. What is the solution to this quandary?
To answer the questions in reverse order: yes, no, and our way of life and theory of government forbid it. The U. S. Constitution does not list forced sterilization among the things that the government can do. The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists the following:
Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
…
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Nope. Saying “society is going to be asked to bear the cost” actually means that the government has certain programs which will pay expenses for disabled children. But the government has programs that pay some costs for everyone in one form or another. If the existence of a government program that pays for a class of people gives government the authority to prevent that class of people from existing, then government would have the authority to prevent anyone from existing.
(While I’m opposed to any forcible sterilization, it seems logical that if the government chose that course it should target corporate executives first, since they’re the ones who are most dependent on government handouts.)
How so? Outside of China, everyone on earth has reproductive freedom. Maintaining that reproductive freedom, and expanding it to China, is an obvious alternative, so we’re not running out of alternatives to government-controlled reproduction. You can’t possibly be arguing that we’re in danger of running out of food, since there’s far more food per capita today than at any previous time and obesity is the world’s fastest-growing health problem.
But as others have said, it should have - read about Carrie Buck, a woman who was sterilized because people falsely claimed that she and her child (a child conceived when she was raped by a relative of her foster parents - the same foster parents who later claimed that she was “feeble-minded”) were mentally retarded. This case was selected by those who favored eugenics as the case that demonstrated the “virtues” of eugenics best. If the people who supported eugenics decided that this case best represented their case, why shouldn’t the practice have a horrible reputation?
I think there’s an enormous difference in family deciding to limit or curtail a mentally handicapped person’s chances at reproduction, and the state coming in to mandate such a thing. I have an autistic daughter myself, and this is something I’ve begun thinking about as she gets older. Again, I don’t think we’d be monsters in deciding our loved ones shouldn’t reproduce, but it would be a really slippery slope if those decisions were made for us.
My husband would have made a good parent, based on how he is around children. He loves kids, he’s good with them, he wanted them more than I ever did.
But the State of Illinois sterilized him somewhere around 8 or 9 years of age. He isn’t sure when, because his parents weren’t consulted, it was simply done during another surgery he had related to his birth defect - a birth defect, by the way, that is not at all genetic and would not have been passed on to a child.
How about a trust fund of some sort, or paying for long term care, as these people did not have the option of having children that might have cared for then in old age?
My parents have children who, for mom, helped her in her final months. My father will have that when his time comes. My husband and I will be forced to hire strangers for when we are old and dying.