Should those sterilized in eugenics programs be compensated?

[even_sven]

@Damuri_Ajashi

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?

I dunno. We could really put a dent in deadbeat dadism (which is the most likely demographic to not contribute to supporting their genetic issue) if we chemically castrated all single men. If they can’t get it up, they can’t knock 'em up, after all.

Is the right for men to have sex so involiate that we cannot lift a finger to regulate who reproduces and how often?

[constanze]

@Grumman

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.

When you “inherit” a state/ country/ nation either by being born into it and not emigrating, or choosing to immigrate, you get the good and the bad. You can’t * just reap the benefits of previous generations without also acknowledging their misdeeds and doing amends, esp. if it hasn’t been done before, and double esp. if the biological window is running out (that is, the people against whom this was perpetrated are very old and will soon die).

• Semantically, you can, but you’d be an asshole if you do.

[UltraVires]

@Indygrrl

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.

Fair enough. But say our respective family members did have a child and the state immediately put them in foster homes because their parents were unfit. Is there any real difference in the sterilization v. family choice outcomes?

Either way, the kids are taken away (either by not being born or growing up in foster homes). And in the latter situation, the kids become a burden on society with their mental challenges (or whatever word works).

Is the new situation somehow better? I realize that the Buck v. Bell case highlighted abuses of state control of sterilization, but I’m sure that posters or other members of the public can give anecdotes about how CPS has overstepped. Is one better than the other?

[PandaBear77]

I knew a lady who had been sterilized by the NC government. She wasn’t retarded, maybe a little bit on the slow side but she certainly would have been able to raise a child.

It pretty much ruined her life, destroyed her self esteem. She never married because she didn’t think any guy would want her since she couldn’t bear children.

It doesn’t change anything, of course, and damned I know how much they should receive, but yes, I think those who were forcibly sterilized should be compensated.

[YogSothoth]

@jtgain

Fair enough. But say our respective family members did have a child and the state immediately put them in foster homes because their parents were unfit. Is there any real difference in the sterilization v. family choice outcomes?

Either way, the kids are taken away (either by not being born or growing up in foster homes). And in the latter situation, the kids become a burden on society with their mental challenges (or whatever word works).

Is the new situation somehow better? I realize that the Buck v. Bell case highlighted abuses of state control of sterilization, but I’m sure that posters or other members of the public can give anecdotes about how CPS has overstepped. Is one better than the other?

Yes, the new situation is better. There is a chance to make up for the mistake if the kids were simply taken away.

[Broomstick]

@jtgain

Fair enough. But say our respective family members did have a child and the state immediately put them in foster homes because their parents were unfit. Is there any real difference in the sterilization v. family choice outcomes?

Either way, the kids are taken away (either by not being born or growing up in foster homes). And in the latter situation, the kids become a burden on society with their mental challenges (or whatever word works).

Two mentally retarded people ARE capable of producing a child of normal intelligence. Not all causes of retardation are inheritable. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the issues involved with mentally challenged people reproducing, but your assumption that such a union will automatically result in another mentally disadvantaged person is wrong.

That is one of MAJOR reasons why the forced sterilizations of the past were so wrong - they were justified based on incorrect beliefs.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ITR_champion

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.

I agree there are constitutional issues associated with forced sterilization that is not also linked to federal benefits but the federal government is allowed to impose requirments on receving federal aid so lets say we limit people on federal aid to one or two children and then they have to be on chemically sterilized (reversible) for at least a year after they get off the federal aid (frankly I think we should limit everyone to one or two chidlren absent a showing that they can support more)?

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.

We are not discriminating based on race nationality or religion. We are discriminating based on ability to support more children without federal aid.

[quote]
…
(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.

We are not talking about discriminating against children born out of wedlock or limiting benefits for mothers we are talking about putting those mothers and fathers on the pill after one or two kids. I fully support MORE support for those kids. I think we should have federally subsidized daycare for working parents and I think we should put a LOT more money into education but I look around and my fellow attorneys all have one or two children and wonder if they can afford a third while people who don’t know how they are going to pay next months rent are having their 4th or 5th child. On of the largest contributing factors to financial distress among the working poor is having too many kids. I’ll foot the tax bill for your first kid or two but I’m not thrilled about the prospect of footing the tax bill for your 4th child when you couldn’t even afford the first one.

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.

Disabled kids a a bit different. I’m not a [proponent of eugenics as such, or even population control. I am more concerned about people breeding themselves into poverty and creaating wards of the state in the process.

(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.)

Thats not true. If the government handouts stopped tomorrow, these folks would not be destitute and unable to support thyeir children. They would simply be unable to afford their fourth or fifth vacation home but these folks are by and large hard working capable people.

@Andy_L

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?

Any policy can be abused and I can find examples of abuse or grievous error for almost any program.

@even_sven

I dunno. We could really put a dent in deadbeat dadism (which is the most likely demographic to not contribute to supporting their genetic issue) if we chemically castrated all single men. If they can’t get it up, they can’t knock 'em up, after all.

Is the right for men to have sex so involiate that we cannot lift a finger to regulate who reproduces and how often?

I wasn’t thinking of chemical castration so much as chemical sterilization. This would also reduce the incidence of deadbeat dads.

@Indygrrl

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.

So if I decide taht my mentally handicapped reltaives can’t have children, its OK (despipte the fact that similarly situated mentally handicapped people would experience different results) but it would be a travesty if the government did so? I wonder if the mentally handicapped person would really care about the difference between the two?

[ITR_champion]

@Damuri_Ajashi

We are not talking about discriminating against children born out of wedlock or limiting benefits for mothers we are talking about putting those mothers and fathers on the pill after one or two kids. I fully support MORE support for those kids. I think we should have federally subsidized daycare for working parents and I think we should put a LOT more money into education but I look around and my fellow attorneys all have one or two children and wonder if they can afford a third while people who don’t know how they are going to pay next months rent are having their 4th or 5th child. On of the largest contributing factors to financial distress among the working poor is having too many kids.

Is there any evidence for this other than nasty stereotypes and obscure Mike Judge movies? The last time I checked the numbers, I got this:

One new mini-trend identifies the wealthy (with incomes of about $250,000) as having more children (2.3) than the middle class (1.8)—slightly more, even, than lower-class families. And the very wealthiest have the most children by far, averaging 2.9 kids.