Another story came out about a woman who was involved in a dastardly crime aand NOW she's going to have a baby...
Has anyone suggested a new punishment for those (i.e. the Texas woman who killed her family etal), to permanently have their reproductive parts taken out?? We don't need more problems down the road!

(Being fair..also for guys who've commited rape as well!)  >:(

Why not also lobotomize them all?

Another story came out about a woman who was involved in a dastardly crime aand NOW she's going to have a baby...
Has anyone suggested a new punishment for those (i.e. the Texas woman who killed her family etal), to permanently have their reproductive parts taken out?? We don't need more problems down the road!

(Being fair..also for guys who've commited rape as well!)  >:(


If that's the case, let's kill the family members of those Klansmen! So every racist and sexist that has children won't continue the vicious cycle they perpetuate.

You have to keep the faith that their children will not follow in their parents' footsteps.

Tanya

Why not also lobotomize them all?

They used to do that, you know.  The old slogan was "Lobotomy gets 'em home!" 
Incidentally, you don't have to remove the uterus to sterilize a woman.  All you gotta do is tie off the fallopian tubes.  I know, I do 'em discount.  Fifty bucks a pop, cheaper than any clinic.
Speaking of sterilizing, sterilization was applied quite, erm, liberally in the old days.  Society just deemed numerous people unworthy to reproduce.  Parents are idiots? No kids for you!

There actually IS a group in California (I think) who got some SERIOUS flack for paying drug addicts and the like $200 if they would get sterilized.  Of course, the women didn't have to pay for the procedure, but people were heaping the shhh on this group saying they were taking advantage of these women and only promoting their problems, they should be spending that $200 on drug treatments, blah, blah, blah.  Now, don't mind that these people were nowhere to be found when it came to helping those women whom they actually prevented from doing this when they got pregnant...no, it was left up to us, the taxpayers yet again because MOST adoptive couples don't want no crack baby ::)
I think it is in California,and anyway it's a good idea because people who can;t take care of themselves have no business reproducing!

Removing the uterus isn't nessasary like Max said ... unless it will deter crime ... but definitely sterilization.  There's WAY TOO MANY people on this planet!  And way too many dysfunctional people we don't need around!

Removing the uterus isn't nessasary like Max said ... unless it will deter crime ... but definitely sterilization.  There's WAY TOO MANY people on this planet!  And way too many dysfunctional people we don't need around!

Many of the world's greatest geniuses were declared "mad," "stupid," "addled" and the like.  We now use the term "dysfunctional." Whatever.

Einstein
Edison
Da Vinci
Van Gogh
Kafka
Poe
Beethoven
John Nash
Thelonius Monk

Not that these names mean anything to you.

Many of the world's greatest geniuses were declared "mad," "stupid," "addled" and the like.  We now use the term "dysfunctional." Whatever.

Einstein
Edison
Da Vinci
Van Gogh
Kafka
Poe
Beethoven
John Nash
Thelonius Monk

Not that these names mean anything to you.


By dysfunctional I mean the ones people may call "evil", not "psycho". IMO it's a sickness in itself.  Caused by mental illness, instinct, ignorance, and poverty  I don't advocate killing people unless there's no value for society and them in their being alive. 

Sorry if I offended you.  :(

I must say, Max, I don't like the attitude many pro-dp people have.  Its very machoistic and vengeant and it makes me angry.  I'm not totally sure on my stance in the issue, but if it is right it shouldn't be done in slow, painful ways the Right likes to go on about.  If done it should be lethal injection ONLY. Electrocution makes me sick.  >:(

(a far right pro-death penalty mockery)

They killed someone, so let's flay them, pour acid in their eyes, and tell them they're going to burn in hell!
I sure hope that suffer for ETERNITY.  I don't care if they're sorry, they STILL deserve DEATH and HELL!
I only do corporate, legal crime, so I'm an innocent, angelic White Man of Jesus Christ.

The End

Removing the uterus isn't nessasary like Max said ... unless it will deter crime ... but definitely sterilization.  There's WAY TOO MANY people on this planet!  And way too many dysfunctional people we don't need around!


Although I agree that the planet is possibly over-populated I don't think mass sterilisation of "undesirables" is the way to go.  Who is to say who fits in to the category of "not fit to reproduce"?  It would start with psychos and murders etc but then could move on to the disabled (both mentally and physically) until it gets to the 'not that bright' level.

I think enforced sterilisation or lobotomisation is a barbaric solution to a sociological problem, and one that harks back to centuries past. I can understand the mentality behind it, but as Maxwell points out, sometimes you need people of an alternative mentality to progress. Deviation is a major part of evolution; if you remove all deviation, you have a fair chance of not evolving.

Although I agree that the planet is possibly over-populated I don't think mass sterilisation of "undesirables" is the way to go.  Who is to say who fits in to the category of "not fit to reproduce"?  It would start with psychos and murders etc but then could move on to the disabled (both mentally and physically) until it gets to the 'not that bright' level.

I used to work in the residential care industry in the UK, particularily with people with autism or learning disabilities. Some of them had been sterilised at the behest of their parents/ guardians, and there were many internal arguments as to the ethics of this- on the one hand, you had Citizens' Advocates arguing enforced sterilisation was against human rights, whilst on the other hand, you had the care agency arguing that they would get sued if the resident got pregnant whilst in their care, so obviously they were tacitly in favour of it. It was exactly this sort of debate that made me leave that industry...

I used to work in the residential care industry in the UK, particularily with people with autism or learning disabilities. Some of them had been sterilized at the behest of their parents/ guardians, and there were many internal arguments as to the ethics of this- on the one hand, you had Citizens' Advocates arguing enforced sterilization was against human rights, whilst on the other hand, you had the care agency arguing that they would get sued if the resident got pregnant whilst in their care, so obviously they were tacitly in favour of it. It was exactly this sort of debate that made me leave that industry...


I have a child with autism.  He is thirteen now and thoughts of babies have entered my mind.  Sterilization is extreme.  There are many different types of non permanent birth control.  With girls they can have the patch or those implants that are good for six months or so.  For boys it isn't quite as easy, I do hope they come up with a similar alternative for them, then when he is older and we are have a better handle on what his abilities are we can make an informed decision as to whether or not to opt for a permanent solution.  In a residential setting opting for forced sterilization would be looked upon with askance.  Were they for it because they believed the persons involved were not equipped for that responsibility, or were they for it because of the liability incurred because a lapse in care made the situation possible, or more insidiously, because should a seriously impaired person became pregnant it could be attributed to a rape?  It has happened.

Hmmmm mass sterilisation.. remind you of another tyrannical regime. Let's all take a page from the Reps at the state of the union address and HEIL GEORGIE!

Anywho, it dosen't matter about over-population, dubyah is gonna get us all to Mars remember. ::)

I have a child with autism.  He is thirteen now and thoughts of babies have entered my mind.  Sterilization is extreme.  There are many different types of non permanent birth control.  With girls they can have the patch or those implants that are good for six months or so.  For boys it isn't quite as easy, I do hope they come up with a similar alternative for them, then when he is older and we are have a better handle on what his abilities are we can make an informed decision as to whether or not to opt for a permanent solution.  In a residential setting opting for forced sterilization would be looked upon with askance.  Were they for it because they believed the persons involved were not equipped for that responsibility, or were they for it because of the liability incurred because a lapse in care made the situation possible, or more insidiously, because should a seriously impaired person became pregnant it could be attributed to a rape?  It has happened.

I can't say that any agencies I worked for actually had anyone sterilized at their own request, but I certainly came into contact with many sterilised female residents, mainly those with serious learning disabilities. Certainly many staff expressed the opinion that permanent sterilisation would be a good option, in the cases of some residents. I think the reasons behind this are a combination of all of those you've listed.
I must admit, in my last post, I confused things a bit. The debates that arose between carers & advocates were more to do with short-term contraception, and the rights of a person with learning disabilities to have sexual relationships/ conceive, rather than about having residents permanently sterilised. We used to have endless arguments (they generally went WAY beyond the point of discussions) about whether, for instance, it infringed a resident's rights for them to be compelled to have a 3-month contraceptive injection, or whether it was appropriate for 2 of our residents to have a physical relationship with each other, that sort of thing. It's an ethical minefield, I got fed up of being caught in the middle between the wishes/needs of employers, advocates & residents, and so bailed out.
As for your son, I've heard that a male contraceptive pill will be marketed soon. It may be an option in the short term. I admire anyone who cares for a relative with autism; I wish you well, you're most likely a living saint!

By dysfunctional I mean the ones people may call "evil", not "psycho". IMO it's a sickness in itself.  Caused by mental illness, instinct, ignorance, and poverty  I don't advocate killing people unless there's no value for society and them in their being alive. 

Sorry if I offended you.  :(


Not at all.  I shouldn't have phrased myself in such a snippy way.  Thing is, I am one of those "deviants" Goodsin refers to.  I had problems with depression way back into childhood.  Some early testing suggested I was mildly retarded.  I was relegated to the "dumb row" by the public school bureaucracy numerous times.
Even in high school when my verbal skills were evident, I was hard to pin down.  On standarized tests I'd score above the top verbally and below the bottom in math. 
I didn't socialize well.  I was withdrawn.
What if I had been declared an imbecile at age 7 and sterilized?

Sterilization was a key component in the "eugenics" movement of the early part of the 20th century.  "Three generations of imbeciles is enough!" as one eugenicist declared. 
Eugenics was a discredited science by the 1950s, but it did catch the eye of a German political up-and-comer known as Adolph Hitler.  Eugenics was the very basis of Nazism, Hitler said so himself.  The Nazis indeed started with sterilization, and then moved on to taking the mentally ill and retarded out of their misery.  Then the idea of genocide became palpable.  So you can see where getting to decide who's worthy to live and who is not can lead.

Today there is a market for egg donations.  The request usually includes these specifics about the desired donor: white, blonde, tall, and ivy league educated.
When I object to this practice, contrarians demand to know what's wrong with letting the parents choose what charactaristics they want their child to have? 

I say "nothing yet, but just wait..."

BTW, this is complex ethical, medical, and philosophical question, and I do not wish to hijack this thread with it!  I was just saying, the "Eugenics" movement did begin with sterilisation and lead to Nazism.

Not at all. I shouldn't have phrased myself in such a snippy way. Thing is, I am one of those "deviants" Goodsin refers to. I had problems with depression way back into childhood. Some early testing suggested I was mildly retarded. I was relegated to the "dumb row" by the public school bureaucracy numerous times.
Even in high school when my verbal skills were evident, I was hard to pin down. On standarized tests I'd score above the top verbally and below the bottom in math.
I didn't socialize well. I was withdrawn.
What if I had been declared an imbecile at age 7 and sterilized?

Sterilization was a key component in the "eugenics" movement of the early part of the 20th century. "Three generations of imbeciles is enough!" as one eugenicist declared.
Eugenics was a discredited science by the 1950s, but it did catch the eye of a German political up-and-comer known as Adolph Hitler. Eugenics was the very basis of Nazism, Hitler said so himself. The Nazis indeed started with sterilization, and then moved on to taking the mentally ill and retarded out of their misery. Then the idea of genocide became palpable. So you can see where getting to decide who's worthy to live and who is not can lead.

Today there is a market for egg donations. The request usually includes these specifics about the desired donor: white, blonde, tall, and ivy league educated.
When I object to this practice, contrarians demand to know what's wrong with letting the parents choose what charactaristics they want their child to have?

I say "nothing yet, but just wait..."

BTW, this is complex ethical, medical, and philosophical question, and I do not wish to hijack this thread with it! I was just saying, the "Eugenics" movement did begin with sterilisation and lead to Nazism.


Thanks for understanding :) I didn't mean to sound like a hard-arse, I more just said if it prevents crime and tragedy rapists shouldn't be able to have kids.  I really despise torture under any circumstances.  But removing the uterus is unnecessay as imo torture won't prevent crime.  Criminals are too stupid to think of the consequences and if they are smart enough they don't care.

If Crime Didn't Pay There Would Be No Criminals

If Crime Didn't Pay There Would Be No Criminals


That's an awesome line, Alchoholica!

-FHF

I wanted to quote who said it.. but can't remember.

They used to do that, you know.  The old slogan was "Lobotomy gets 'em home!" 
Incidentally, you don't have to remove the uterus to sterilize a woman.  All you gotta do is tie off the fallopian tubes.  I know, I do 'em discount.  Fifty bucks a pop, cheaper than any clinic.
Speaking of sterilizing, sterilization was applied quite, erm, liberally in the old days.  Society just deemed numerous people unworthy to reproduce.  Parents are idiots? No kids for you!


Yes, I knew all of this (except you doing cut rate tube tying).  In fact, Vermont in the 1920's was a center for eugenics.  Lots of "mentally defectives" sterilized.

Many of the world's greatest geniuses were declared "mad," "stupid," "addled" and the like.  We now use the term "dysfunctional." Whatever.

Einstein
Edison
Da Vinci
Van Gogh
Kafka
Poe
Beethoven
John Nash
Thelonius Monk

Not that these names mean anything to you.




Actually, there is a fine line between genius and madness, at least during the  lifetime of the genius/lunatic

Just as many 'normal sized' people came from little people, I directed this point to the people who extremely fouled up..(maybe Amy Fisher) who just had another child....then Mary Jo was nice to let her continue with her life.. can't wait to hear if the family discussion go: 'hey kids when I was your age, I shot my lovers wife!'

I guess some scientists are finding out ahead of time through experiments that some brains are born with a criminal factor....

LET'S HEAR IT FOR UTOPIA!!!
and 16 teeth minimums!*

*No put down against Alabama ::)

Although I agree that the planet is possibly over-populated I don't think mass sterilisation of "undesirables" is the way to go.  Who is to say who fits in to the category of "not fit to reproduce"?  It would start with psychos and murders etc but then could move on to the disabled (both mentally and physically) until it gets to the 'not that bright' level.


Yeah, kind of reminds me of the scenario of The Wrath of Khan, the second Star Trek movie.  Its not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

I think enforced sterilisation or lobotomisation is a barbaric solution to a sociological problem, and one that harks back to centuries past. I can understand the mentality behind it, but as Maxwell points out, sometimes you need people of an alternative mentality to progress. Deviation is a major part of evolution; if you remove all deviation, you have a fair chance of not evolving.


Saver may have been serious, but my suggestion to also lobotomize was totally sarcastic, I hope that was abunmdantly clear

Not at all.  I shouldn't have phrased myself in such a snippy way.  Thing is, I am one of those "deviants" Goodsin refers to.  I had problems with depression way back into childhood.  Some early testing suggested I was mildly retarded.  I was relegated to the "dumb row" by the public school bureaucracy numerous times.
Even in high school when my verbal skills were evident, I was hard to pin down.  On standarized tests I'd score above the top verbally and below the bottom in math. 
I didn't socialize well.  I was withdrawn.
What if I had been declared an imbecile at age 7 and sterilized?


Hey Max, I wasn't calling anybody personally a deviant, I used the phrase 'cos I couldn't think of another word for "mutation", which I consider to be the process that leads to evolution. Being a deviant sounds nicer than being a mutant, though!
Your post confirms my earlier point exactly- as someone I've frequently admired for their erudition, I find it quite surprising you had that start in life. You obviously make a very valid contribution to society, as I'm sure your children would; to think that someone of your ability could have been 'eugenised' just displays the fallacy of such a policy.

^ The decision by that judge is so wrong.  There was a time when hysterectomies were
thought to cure a womans psychological problems(hysteria), and this harkens back to those
days.  Tying her tubes are the answer to the cause and effect of her actions, I can't believe that
this is being allowed.  >:(

This sort of rot was tried in the early twentieth century with Eugenics. A government cannot be given the power to steralise people at will. People who advocate things like this are just begging for a dystopian state.

Well, there are separate issues being conflated here -- whether an individual's genes are likely to produce an 'undesirable' offspring is separate from the issue of whether or not the individual should be allowed to become a parent.

IMO, there are lots of healthy, well-educated, financially sound, law-abiding people who should NEVER become parents.  Most people just aren't willing to fully take on the responsibility.  People go around having kids as some kind of vanity -- an ego-gratification, or an irresponsible indulgence of some primal instinct, or whatever... then they complain and complain about this, that and the other -- how 'hard' it is... the 'sacrifices...'.  Boo-friggin-hoo.  Shoulda used condoms.

Look, we as a society take on the responsibility of helping to support those of us who are unable to care for ourselves.  That should mean that collectively, we have to accept that we can't just go around doing whatever the hell we want.  There's no free lunch.  Unless we want 'every man for himself' social darwinism, we have to accept that we all have certain responsibilities to the society at large.  Including no bringing children into the world that you can't provide for.  Providing for a child doesn't mean poor nutritiion, unsafe living conditions, and a substandard education that ends at high school.  Nor does it mean au pairs, boarding schools and money in lieu of parenting.

If someone can't provide a good, stable, emotionally supportive, morally sound, intellectually stimulating environment for a child, they shouldn't have one.  Period.  If they can't see that, then society should intervene and not allow them to have them.

But that'll never happen.  This is the 'something for nothing' society.  I can dream, though, can't I?

If someone can't provide a good, stable, emotionally supportive, morally sound, intellectually stimulating environment for a child, they shouldn't have one.  Period.  If they can't see that, then society should intervene and not allow them to have them.

But that'll never happen.  This is the 'something for nothing' society.  I can dream, though, can't I?


The problem is who gets to decide who is a fit parent, before the person becomes a parent.  Society
has stepped in before and decided the certain people weren't up to snuff in the parenting department
and sterilized a lot of women so that "they couldn't breed".  They all thought what they were doing was
right, in their minds Native Americans and  African Americans realy didn't love their children as much as white people, and didn't care for them as well as they should etc, etc...They were wrong, but,  oops... it is too late now.

The problem is who gets to decide who is a fit parent, before the person becomes a parent.  Society
has stepped in before and decided the certain people weren't up to snuff in the parenting department
and sterilized a lot of women so that "they couldn't breed".  They all thought what they were doing was
right, in their minds Native Americans and  African Americans realy didn't love their children as much as white people, and didn't care for them as well as they should etc, etc...They were wrong, but,  oops... it is too late now.


Well, blanket generalizations about a particular group are just stupid.  That's not even worth considering as public policy.

I draw a clear line between government and society. Society can work around things like mandatory sterilisation. One can be court ordered not to become pregnant, and be given the option to be steralised. If she isn't steralised and becomes pregnant, she has broken the law, she will go to jail, and the child (if not aborted) will be taken away.

The bottom line is that personally, there is no authority I am willing to trust enough to give them the power to decide who will be sterilised.

Well, blanket generalizations about a particular group are just stupid.  That's not even worth considering as public policy.

Yeah, people who make generalizations are all jerks!
:D

Yeah, people who make generalizations are all jerks!
:D

;D

There has to be another solution besides government-ordered steralisation. It's frightening. The government will abuse any power it is given. Even if it means cutting our losses and just dealing with it, it's better than allowing an extra authority to a government. People could be steralised simply for their political views, so that they won't have a chance to rear more dissenters. It could turn out that way so easily.