• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program

Alyssa

¡Selah!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
8,647
Reaction score
3,150
Location
southern and midwestern United States where Protes
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes. [ ] Riddick’s records reveal that a five-person state eugenics board in Raleigh had approved a recommendation that she be sterilized. The records label Riddick as “feebleminded” and “promiscuous.” They said her schoolwork was poor and that she “does not get along well with others.”

North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program. By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.
Eugenics was a scientific theory that grew in popularity during the 1920s. Eugenicists believed that poverty, promiscuity and alcoholism were traits that were inherited. To eliminate those society ills and improve society’s gene pool, proponents of the theory argued that those that exhibited the traits should be sterilized. Some of America’s wealthiest citizens of the time were eugenicists including Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble fortune and James Hanes of the hosiery company. Hanes helped found the Human Betterment League which promoted the cause of eugenicists.

Link

Like a page from the novel 1984, the victims of forced sterilization lived through an Orwellian nightmare. Against their will, they were permanently sterilized. The decision was made by people they never met who believed that they were inferior, and should not be able to breed. Should these victims be compensated by the government? And what attempts, if any, should be made to prevent this from happening again?

Another interesting question: are there instances when people should be forcefully sterilized?
 
Another interesting question: are there instances when people should be forcefully sterilized?

serial rapists come to mind. although sterilization may not be going far enough.

I would also add to the list:

single women on govt assistance that have pumped out 4-5 kids and men who have fathered 4-5 kids by several different women.

I know a female who had given birth to 7 kids by 5 different fathers by the time she was 25. perfect candidate for forced sterilization.


or this guy:

Man Claiming To Have Fathered 55 Kids By 42 Women Sued For Paternity Fraud

http://newsone.com/world/casey-gane...55-kids-by-42-women-sued-for-paternity-fraud/
 
Last edited:
There are people on this board that would agree with forced sterilization and have argued for it as of yesterday.

I've heard about those instances though. It's sick that some boards acted as God and mandated who can have children and who can't. You'd think this story would of gotten more press because it's a pretty sickening situation.
 
serial rapists come to mind. although sterilization may not be going far enough.

I would also add to the list:

single women on govt assistance that have pumped out 4-5 kids and men who have fathered 4-5 kids by several different women.

I think of Andrea Yates. Should a woman who killed her own kids be sterilized? I tend to automatically say yes in these extreme types of situations, like the one you mentioned. But what a horrifying precedent to set.
 
I think of Andrea Yates. Should a woman who killed her own kids be sterilized? I tend to automatically say yes in these extreme types of situations, like the one you mentioned. But what a horrifying precedent to set.

true. the old slippery slope comes into play. If we start forcibly sterilizing people like that....how long before the definition/standard is broadened to include even more "undesirables"?
 
serial rapists come to mind. although sterilization may not be going far enough.

I would also add to the list:

single women on govt assistance that have pumped out 4-5 kids and men who have fathered 4-5 kids by several different women.

I know a female who had given birth to 7 kids by 5 different fathers by the time she was 25. perfect candidate for forced sterilization.


or this guy:



Man Claiming To Have Fathered 55 Kids By 42 Women Sued For Paternity Fraud | News One

Serial rapists (specifically pedophiles, who are acting on attraction, not power urges) should have their genitals completely removed. Sterilization alone will not prevent them from further action, but making them eunics will quell a lot of those desires pretty quickly...
 
Serial rapists (specifically pedophiles, who are acting on attraction, not power urges) should have their genitals completely removed. Sterilization alone will not prevent them from further action, but making them eunics will quell a lot of those desires pretty quickly...

I have seen several instances where convicted child molesters have actually asked the court to have themselves chemically castrated.
 
I have seen several instances where convicted child molesters have actually asked the court to have themselves chemically castrated.

And kudos, but chemical castration is a continuous process and requires that the molester continue to receive medication (usually through a PO or monitoring program), which makes it easier for the molester to undo the effects of the medication.
 
Link

Like a page from the novel 1984, the victims of forced sterilization lived through an Orwellian nightmare. Against their will, they were permanently sterilized. The decision was made by people they never met who believed that they were inferior, and should not be able to breed. Should these victims be compensated by the government? And what attempts, if any, should be made to prevent this from happening again?

Another interesting question: are there instances when people should be forcefully sterilized?

Yes, the victims should be compensated by the state. They were robbed of their ability to be parents at the very least, without due process, though I can think of no process that exists under the law that would give a state that right.

It's often suggested that pedophiles and rapists be forceably sterilized, but I can't support that either, much as I would love to seek vengeance against them in that manner.
 
There are people on this board that would agree with forced sterilization and have argued for it as of yesterday.

I've heard about those instances though. It's sick that some boards acted as God and mandated who can have children and who can't. You'd think this story would of gotten more press because it's a pretty sickening situation.

Are you pro-abortion?
 
Link

Like a page from the novel 1984, the victims of forced sterilization lived through an Orwellian nightmare. Against their will, they were permanently sterilized. The decision was made by people they never met who believed that they were inferior, and should not be able to breed. Should these victims be compensated by the government? And what attempts, if any, should be made to prevent this from happening again?

Another interesting question: are there instances when people should be forcefully sterilized?

It's not Orwellian so much as Huxleyan.

As for my beliefs: the government must compensate, must put out a forceful apology, and repudiate it. Bioethics standards must continue to focus attention on the academics and other walks of life that still promote the ideology that some are not fit to breed, and that some, because of illness or circumstance, are unworthy of life.

The issue is, Eugenics, as a scientific outlook, existed far before the 1920s, encompassed a large number of individuals from all walks of life and professions, and both liberal and conservative dispositions. It even claimed favor of two of our presidents. Yet, it also claimed much of the Western world, including Britain, and of course, Germany. It targeted a large number of groups, ranging from the poor, the promiscuous, the racially inferior, to the disabled and mentally handicapped.
 
Last edited:
I'm not for anyone deciding who can and can't have children except the individuals themselves. This is America, for the love of God.
 
It's not Orwellian so much as Huxleyan.

Either description could work.

As for my beliefs: the government must compensate, must put out a forceful apology, and repudiate it. Bioethics standards must continue to focus attention on the academics and other walks of life that still promote the ideology that some are not fit to breed, and that some, because of illness or circumstance, are unworthy of life.

The issue is, Eugenics, as a scientific outlook, existed far before the 1920s, encompassed a large number of individuals from all walks of life and professions, and both liberal and conservative dispositions. It even claimed favor of two of our presidents. Yet, it also claimed much of the Western world, including Britain, and of course, Germany. It targeted a large number of groups, ranging from the poor, the promiscuous, the racially inferior, to the disabled and mentally handicapped.

Agreed. I fear the day when committees decide for us who is fit to live and breed and who isn't.

I also agree that some type of compensation is warranted, but just how much- I'm not sure. Can any amount of money replace one's genetic immortality? Definitely not, imo.
 
And kudos, but chemical castration is a continuous process and requires that the molester continue to receive medication (usually through a PO or monitoring program), which makes it easier for the molester to undo the effects of the medication.

Yep, more evidence that it shouldn't be used. Rusty Garden shears without a Tetanus shot would be a much better and appropriate method.
 
Link

Like a page from the novel 1984, the victims of forced sterilization lived through an Orwellian nightmare. Against their will, they were permanently sterilized. The decision was made by people they never met who believed that they were inferior, and should not be able to breed. Should these victims be compensated by the government? And what attempts, if any, should be made to prevent this from happening again?

Another interesting question: are there instances when people should be forcefully sterilized?

No, they shouldn't be compensated. I think everything's in place to assure that this never happens again in this country, so nothing needs to be done.

Okay, your last question. Let me just open my self up to a bitch slap here. If someone has had three children (four? I don't know) and can't support any of them, then I think it would make sense to sterilize them. 'Course that's never going to happen.
 
No, they shouldn't be compensated. I think everything's in place to assure that this never happens again in this country, so nothing needs to be done.

Okay, your last question. Let me just open my self up to a bitch slap here. If someone has had three children (four? I don't know) and can't support any of them, then I think it would make sense to sterilize them. 'Course that's never going to happen.

The precedent that would set could be disastrous.
 
Link

Like a page from the novel 1984, the victims of forced sterilization lived through an Orwellian nightmare. Against their will, they were permanently sterilized. The decision was made by people they never met who believed that they were inferior, and should not be able to breed. Should these victims be compensated by the government? And what attempts, if any, should be made to prevent this from happening again?

Another interesting question: are there instances when people should be forcefully sterilized?

My cousin had paranoid schizophrenia before she died, a few years ago.

She had 3 kids, all of which were given up for adoption, because she wasn't responsible enough to take care of them and lived a transient, promiscuous life style.
Not saying it's right, but then again sometimes it's not wrong.
 
My cousin had paranoid schizophrenia before she died, a few years ago.

She had 3 kids, all of which were given up for adoption, because she wasn't responsible enough to take care of them and lived a transient, promiscuous life style.
Not saying it's right, but then again sometimes it's not wrong.

saw it all the time when we were foster parents. female would have her kid(s) taken away by DHR because she was unfit and then 9-10 months later pop out another one and DHR would take it away and then 9-10 months later she'd have another one...rinse repeat.

I know of cases where DHR actually went to the hospital on the day of the birth to take control of the kid.

people like that should be sterilized
 
Are you pro-abortion?

What does the abortion question or the posters position on the matter have to do with the thread topic?

The issue isn't about abortions; it's about forced sterilization. Those who seak to have an abortion do so at their choice. These people who were forcefully sterilized against their will, without their knowledge had no choice!

No, they shouldn't be compensated. I think everything's in place to assure that this never happens again in this country, so nothing needs to be done.

Okay, your last question. Let me just open my self up to a bitch slap here. If someone has had three children (four? I don't know) and can't support any of them, then I think it would make sense to sterilize them. 'Course that's never going to happen.

I disagree.

These people were made to be victims of a medical procedure that by all accounts they knew nothing about. They were selected for sterilization by Social Workers and health care professions in most cases without any credible evidence to support the claims of sexual deviance, parental irresponsibility, or medical history of birth defects running through their family line. How do you justify non-compensation for such a wrong?

I could understand if these people were rapists or pedophiles, but you just don't remove a person's ability to reproduce because you think they may be harmful to the State whether economically or criminally. With such actions, you've gone beyond population control or "best practises to reduce entitlement expenses" and crossed into the realm of geneside, picking who lives, who dies or in the case of forceable sterilization who is entitled to or least desireable for procreation.
 
Last edited:
saw it all the time when we were foster parents. female would have her kid(s) taken away by DHR because she was unfit and then 9-10 months later pop out another one and DHR would take it away and then 9-10 months later she'd have another one...rinse repeat.

I know of cases where DHR actually went to the hospital on the day of the birth to take control of the kid.

people like that should be sterilized

My wife and I were trying to adopt a little girl and it was a similar situation, only that the mother was just irresponsible and had a lot of unprotected sex.
That girl was the 4th given up to the state.
 
Eugenics was nothing more than fascists justifying their sadistic impulses with fake concern for genetics. They never advocated sterilizing people with actual genetic defects, like tay-sachs or cystic fibrosis, because that would target people with the resources to fight back. Unwed mothers and the mentally ill were chosen precisely because they were helpless.
 
For Decades they used Softpeter and in the military...then it was made illegal...and prison rapes soared. That doesnt translate into im for forced sterilizations....
 
For Decades they used Softpeter and in the military...then it was made illegal...and prison rapes soared. That doesnt translate into im for forced sterilizations....
cites, please
 
The victims of this nightmare should be compensated generously.
 
My cousin had paranoid schizophrenia before she died, a few years ago.

She had 3 kids, all of which were given up for adoption, because she wasn't responsible enough to take care of them and lived a transient, promiscuous life style.
Not saying it's right, but then again sometimes it's not wrong.

The thing is, legislation is rarely individualized. Such decisions would be made in situations like the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom