posted
A City Council member, reacting to a video store holdup believed to have been carried out by children, says parents who can't properly care for their kids should be sterilized.
You know, though, every time I see a story about abusive parents who have gone to jail again, and their children are in foster care, again, and they are reproducing, again? I get more than a little bit annoyed. And yes, I do contemplate forced sterilization for people that do that sort of thing.
Same goes for parents who are using or dealing drugs, and screwing up their kids that way.
And you know, if an issue came up on the ballot with enforced sterilization, like a three-strikes-you're-fixed law for parents convicted of abuse or neglect three times? I would have a hard time talking myself out of voting for it.
But I also don't think that people have an inherent right to reproduce, either.
However, what purpose does it serve to sterilize parents who simply have bad kids? Even the best parents can have kids that turn out bad, for whatever reason.
So...while I might endorse enforced sterilization for people who continually abuse and neglect their children? Enforced sterilization for people who have kids who act like jerks? No way, I think they should be forced to live with the consequences of their actions!
-------------------- Beware corporate zombies! They will purchase your brain on E-Bay! Posts: 2310 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
[Good ole' boy South Carolina Judge] "Mah lawd... it seems that Billy has gone and caught TEH GAY. This homersexaulity is clearly the product of baaaaaad parenting. I heaaahby order the parents sterilized, and Billy sent to the "Christian Brotherhood Camp For Behaviah Readjusment." Mah lawd!"[/Good ole' boy South Carolina Judge]
-------------------- High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record I don't think that how bad or good the children turn out should reflect on the parents ability to reproduce..
Besides, ignoring "who defines bad" when do you make the call? How many people out there had rough teenage years only to turn themselves around? How many people out there were prefect little angel teenagers only to slide downhill?
I could see the argument for steralization of parents who are bad, continually in jail, addicted to drugs, all that good stuff, if there were a way to reverse it (which I am not certain that there is).
I believe that willfully placing a child in that sort of environment is tantamount to child abuse.
That said, much in the same vein as my above argument, what happens down the road? What if hte parent turns their life around and is now a very good person, well too late, their ability to reproduce is gone.. That is again unless you can reverse it easily.
Heck, sometimes (take with grain of salt) I think it would be wise to simply steralize all kids until they reach the age of 18, then they could make the informed choice of having a baby and would be more capable (hopefully) of accepting the risks of it.
Of course there are a million and one problems to that, and if it were ever put to vote I"d vote against it, but still in the back of my mind I see its merets
(and hey, all the free sex you want with no baby consequence )
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that just b/c the parents are "bad" Necessarily means the child/children will turn out that way. I feel like if they were to sterilize "bad" parents that would be like saying "since you are not a good parent, your children are going to be the same way" and I just don't think you can determine that just by parental skills.
If anybody is really interested in this actual topic, I read a fictional book that second handedly deals with a real life "Eugenics" project that happened in Vermont in the early 1930's where they were sterilizing prisoners and mentally insane people to keep them from reproducing once they got out. It is called: Second Glance By: Jodi Picoult
quote:
Remember you are UNIQUE, just like EVERYBODY else!
Posts: 12 | From: Rock Hill, South Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: "These mothers need to be spayed if they can't take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it's running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."
The headline is a bit misleading, he's not advocating sterilizing parents who have bad kids, he's blaming good old mom.
Doesn't really address the issue of what to do with the existing children who have gone bad of course, but as long as they've managed to hold mom accountable, well, that's alright then. Problem solved.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ms. K: *puts on flame proof underwear*
You know, though, every time I see a story about abusive parents who have gone to jail again, and their children are in foster care, again, and they are reproducing, again? I get more than a little bit annoyed. And yes, I do contemplate forced sterilization for people that do that sort of thing.
Same goes for parents who are using or dealing drugs, and screwing up their kids that way.
And you know, if an issue came up on the ballot with enforced sterilization, like a three-strikes-you're-fixed law for parents convicted of abuse or neglect three times? I would have a hard time talking myself out of voting for it.
But I also don't think that people have an inherent right to reproduce, either.
However, what purpose does it serve to sterilize parents who simply have bad kids? Even the best parents can have kids that turn out bad, for whatever reason.
So...while I might endorse enforced sterilization for people who continually abuse and neglect their children? Enforced sterilization for people who have kids who act like jerks? No way, I think they should be forced to live with the consequences of their actions!
How about parents who work 60+ hours a week to provide their children with all the material crap money can buy but who don't actually spend time with their children to raise them?
Let me know if you ever run for office, by the way, so I can send a check to your opponent.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: How about parents who work 60+ hours a week to provide their children with all the material crap money can buy but who don't actually spend time with their children to raise them?
Wouldn't that qualify as neglect?
-------------------- "It's a perfect system...unless it screws up." -Biology Professor Posts: 495 | From: Orange County, CA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question for me is would it be sterilizable neglect, like Ms. K is advocating for others?
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Don't give me that "Well who's to say who's a good parent?" Bullshit. We have plenty of legal standards regarding parenting we apply all the time.
You want proof? Foster parents.
So a person goes out, adopts a child then proves themselves to be a "bad parent" by whatever criteria we decide to use. I don't think anyone would pitch a fit over that person being told they couldn't adopt anymore children.
A person goes out, mothers/fathers a child biologically then proves themselves to be a "bad parent" by the exact same criteria, so we tell them they can't have anymore children.
What's the difference?
If you believe that a person has some sort of inalieable right to create a child biologically regardless of whether or not they are fit to do it, how can you say that someone shouldn't be able to take one of the countless unwanted children sitting around in orphanages and temporary foster homes?
What is big deal about biologically creating the child? It doesn't bestow some sort of good parenting ability on you.
I think the two standards we have for biological and non biological parents is incrediably hypocritical.
A biological parent has to do nothing but engage in a rather easy to do biological act in order to have legal, binding, and incrediably powerful control over a child.
A non-biological parent in order to adopt has to jump through a whole lot of hoops to prove they are a good parent.
And you're telling me that its perfectly logical to remove their ability to parent if they prove themselves unable to parent, but wrong to tell the biological parents the exact same thing if they prove themselves to be such a bad parent?
I honestly don't understand why people should have the right to create a child biologically but not the right to adopt an unwanted one.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that everybody has the right to biologically bear children. SCOTUS disagrees with me, however.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: I don't think that everybody has the right to biologically bear children.
I agree with the concept, however, I see real problems in the application.
I see how some treat their kids and I really do wish they didn't have them.
The problem is who gets to decide? I know some here would think I would qualify for the sterilization...
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
*Shrugs* The same way we get to decide who gets to adopt and who doesn't.
Seriously what's the big difference?
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we have bag snatchers' hands cut off while we are at it? And disfigure the faces of those engaged ion harlotry. Removing the vocal cords of those who take the lord's name in vain would also be good.
Drop-why stop at sterilization? how about public floggings!-bear
-------------------- " The villagers had said justice had been done, and she'd lost patience and told them to go home, then, and pray to whatever gods they believed in that it was never done to them. -- (Terry Pratchett) Posts: 823 | From: Hobart, Tasmania | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: I don't think that everybody has the right to biologically bear children. SCOTUS disagrees with me, however.
Yup. I had a conversation along this line with my brother, the lawyer, and he told me that there is a presumption of the law that everyone does, in fact, have an inherent right to reproduce.
-As far as judging a bad parent or not, it's obvious that were we to do that, we couldn't do it by how the kids turn out - because one person's failure is another person's pride and joy. But people who abuse and murder their children - not a spanking, but third degree burns, broken bones, things that are in no way a shade of gray - those people, I have absolutely NO problem whatsover with ripping out their reproductive organs, and not necessarily with anesthesia.
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: *Shrugs* The same way we get to decide who gets to adopt and who doesn't.
Seriously what's the big difference?
After helping my bro get his little girl, I would say using that standard would rule out just about everyone.
I am not sure about your area, but the adoption process where my brother lives is broken.
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Well yeah that's kinda my point. It's nigh-impossible to adopt in some areas and incrediably difficult in others and no one pitches a fit about that and I frankly don't see the difference between telling someone they can't adopt and telling someone the can't biologically create a child.
Unless someone wants to explain to me the significance of biologically creating a child rather then adopting one, then I'd say the double standard is extremely hypocritical.
And since I'm assuming that no one here would suggest allowing someone to walk into a orphanage, pick up a child, and walk out with them without so much as signing a checkout sheet, then I don't understand how they can get all huffy about suggesting that people not be able to go out and biologically create a child without the same level of scrutiny.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahemm, Joe because we are talking about someone else's body. Adopting a child, or not, does not include some invasive surgical procedure. Using irreversible invasive medical procedures on criminals has been used before and not to the benefit of humanity or the society it was used in. I guess this means you win this argument huh? This thread disturbs me eugenics are a bad thing. Yes there are some people who should not breed, who they are is a matter of opinion and not one that should not be inflicted on others. This has such horrendous potential for abuse that I can't even contemplate it without shuddering.
P&LL, Syl
-------------------- Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire Posts: 1944 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I really wasn't even talking about sterilization, only the fact that telling people they can't have children biologically is seen as so much worst then telling people they can't adopt.
I understand the practical level is different, but morally I see no difference between telling someone they can't adopt and telling someone they can't biologically have a child.
So sterilization, no of course not.
But court ordered birth control... mayhaps.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'd be very suspicious of any forced-sterilization law because historically that sort of thing has been a tool of bigots, I do not think that people have an inalienable right to reproduce, and my main objection to an unprejudiced law would actually be that it implies that a doctor will perform a medical procedure on someone without that person's consent, which isn't something I want to allow. If a non-surgical form of sterilization were possible, I think I would support a wise implementation of it.
-------------------- Fools! You've over-estimated me! Posts: 3745 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If only there were some way to temporarily sterilize *everyone* at birth, and then only reverse it once they've proven they can adequately care for a child. No? Too much? What?
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: I really wasn't even talking about sterilization, only the fact that telling people they can't have children biologically is seen as so much worst then telling people they can't adopt.
I understand the practical level is different, but morally I see no difference between telling someone they can't adopt and telling someone they can't biologically have a child.
So sterilization, no of course not.
But court ordered birth control... mayhaps.
Skinner v Oklahoma.
Good reading.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by monkey: If only there were some way to temporarily sterilize *everyone* at birth, and then only reverse it once they've proven they can adequately care for a child. No? Too much? What?
Hey, that was *my* idea! Just a simple test to pass, not unlike getting your driver's license!
-but there's really no way in actual life that could probably be done, and all the people who are horrified at the idea of a procedure being done to a human against their wills have valid points. -Doing something to a person's body against their will is something we do to criminals, though. I think that is probably even more of an argument against doing something to ordinary citizens, though, isn't it?
-------------------- "Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit
(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad) Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[flame]](graemlins/flame.gif)
