• 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!

Nearly 250 female inmates sterilized in California prisons without state approval

So what? Some reasonable thought would have to be given as to how much of a "discount" you get, and my committee hasn't formed yet to sort this completely out.

When you're a prisoner, we coerce you into living in a tiny space with no comforts and no privacy. In Norway, it's not a crime to break out of prison because they feel it ius natural. In America, breakouts are harshly punished. In my view, this would be a reasonable exchange between society and those who harmed society.

It's one thing to put someone in a jail cell and give them no choice to leave, which honestly is bad enough, but it's another to give them a choice between imprisonment and agreeing to lose bodily functions on the condition of the release. Do you honestly think it is right for the state to offer a coercive choice that ends in bodily impairment?

Do you really want the state to have the power to offer those kind of choices to desperate people? The condition of imprisonment is obviously a strong motivator for them to accept any condition on release including losing bodily function.
 
No it is you who are mistaken.


I don't care in the slightest about some international version of libertarianism (which absolutely does not exist, I've spoken to many a European and none of them have Libertarians in their countries political systems). We're talking about the American left and American Libertarianism. We're in the empire. Don't drag us into some despicable internationalist version of anything so as to muddy the waters.


In America the Left represents Government, not some myopic radical 'Libertarian Left' which grants an individual any right. That is not the American Left and never has been. In America the Left is pro big government and pro government intervention in your life (taxing you, creating eternal subservience via welfare/other).


You seem to have it mixed up that the Left is not this in America, it is. The Right is the individualist party. The Left *is* the side with the judiciary, the judges, big govt and its subsidiaries. The right is the one that argues that she should be able to have 10 kids, not the left. Again, you seem to be confused. The Left in America pushes abortion and birth control for a reason and it isn't for civil rights or women's rights, it's the Lefts answer to many things conservatives don't have an answer for frankly. (Population control of certain negative social subsets, single mothers, generational poverty, +++).

I have lived in Europe, and South America, and Africa, and currently in Asia. Libertarians exist everywhere. If your sources of political theory are limited to talking heads on American television, particularly Fox News and MSNBC, then that would explain where you are coming from. If you would like some books to read I can recommend them. Hell, even a little bit of time on Wikidpedia's Libertarianism page will enlighten you a bit. But if you want to have a deeper conversation on this it really should go in its own thread.
 
Yes, I am completely content to have them lose this particular body function. It does not prevent them from finding true love and screwing their brains out when they are released. Who and how as I said earlier, would need some serious thought. Maybe the offer is restricted to certain crimes, certain histories and in the best of all worlds (mine that is) certain IQ levels.




It's one thing to put someone in a jail cell and give them no choice to leave, which honestly is bad enough, but it's another to give them a choice between imprisonment and agreeing to lose bodily functions on the condition of the release. Do you honestly think it is right for the state to offer a coercive choice that ends in bodily impairment?

Do you really want the state to have the power to offer those kind of choices to desperate people? The condition of imprisonment is obviously a strong motivator for them to accept any condition on release including losing bodily function.
 
Yes, I am completely content to have them lose this particular body function. It does not prevent them from finding true love and screwing their brains out when they are released. Who and how as I said earlier, would need some serious thought. Maybe the offer is restricted to certain crimes, certain histories and in the best of all worlds (mine that is) certain IQ levels.

We already did exactly that and it lead to disastrous consequences.
 
The fewer children these women have will be a gift to society. I'd like to see them offer reduced sentences in exchange for male or female sterilization. Anything that will reduce the exponential growth those least able to produce decent children.

Have you ever cracked a history book? Every attempt to "improve society" through government sterilization has lead to atrocities. There is no debate on whether its a slippery slope when you can see the mangled bodies of the last group of idiots who took that path. The state cannot be trusted with such power as abuse is inevitable.
 
I can find nothing wrong with the concept, only the execution. Everything has been done badly before and everything is a slippery slope. So, no changes should ever be made in anything because everything leads somewhere bad?

Look at what your government is up to now simply because the technology exists to do it. If only we hadn't invented cameras or the internet, we'd be so much more free. So, for my postulations, I presume it will be done correctly and that it will advance society, not impair it.

Crime is a true melting pot so at least no single race or creed will be chosen.



We already did exactly that and it lead to disastrous consequences.

Have you ever cracked a history book? Every attempt to "improve society" through government sterilization has lead to atrocities. There is no debate on whether its a slippery slope when you can see the mangled bodies of the last group of idiots who took that path. The state cannot be trusted with such power as abuse is inevitable.
 
The fewer children these women have will be a gift to society. I'd like to see them offer reduced sentences in exchange for male or female sterilization. Anything that will reduce the exponential growth those least able to produce decent children.

I am sorry, but it is the land of the free, right? I am all for promoting people to stop having untold numbers of kids, but blackmailing them with reduced sentences for sterilization, that is just immoral.
 
I can find nothing wrong with the concept, only the execution. Everything has been done badly before and everything is a slippery slope. So, no changes should ever be made in anything because everything leads somewhere bad?

Look at what your government is up to now simply because the technology exists to do it. If only we hadn't invented cameras or the internet, we'd be so much more free. So, for my postulations, I presume it will be done correctly and that it will advance society, not impair it.

Crime is a true melting pot so at least no single race or creed will be chosen.

The state having the power to remove peoples bodily function is allowing the state to impede on the bodily functions of their citizens. To say that a decidedly coercive and frankly an immoral choice to offer someone that leads to loss of bodily function is fine because they might not commit further crimes or they will have no further children is simply saying it's fine to have the state bully its citizens in giving up their bodily functions. That does nothing to improve society.
 
Do they also force male inmates to be sterilized so they do not continue procreating?
 
For me this depends on how they go about practicing this. If they are going up to offenders who have a history of crime and a lot of births and saying to them they can offer them tubal ligation to help so they don't have anymore kids they cannot care for, I am not terribly bothered by that. I am also not terribly bothered by the guilt prison moms might have because of their poor choices and the way their life is going. In my mind they should feel guilty for screwing over their children with their poor decisions. I do not blame the state for their guilt. However, if the state is bribing them or coercing them to have it then they need to stop doing the bribing and coercion. If the women feel guilty, as they should, and make a choice to not bring children into this world they cannot take care of, and we offer them a solution while they are incarcerated to lower society's costs of welfare and other social services that come into play when these women get out and have more kids, I am pretty good with that.
 
Do they also force male inmates to be sterilized so they do not continue procreating?

I would be up for them offering to do that for prisoners who have a problem with impregnating women and creating children they cannot pay for.
 
I guess they shouldn't have ****ed up and got sent to the joint.

Won't this save money becaue they won't be spitting out puppies that we have to support? I mean, that's the argument used to support tax payer funded abortion.

You don't believe this crap. do you?
 
I'm all for this, depending on the crime. In addition, I'd like many others not yet in prison to be sterilized.
 
Do they also force male inmates to be sterilized so they do not continue procreating?

Of course not.... that would be immoral and illegal because it involves men... :)
 
You don't believe this crap. do you?

He does. Not the first time I have heard this from right wingers... in the US and in Europe. Guess the eugenics attitude of the early 20th century is still alive and well on the right.
 
I'm all for this, depending on the crime. In addition, I'd like many others not yet in prison to be sterilized.

Hm.
I might be beginning to agree with you.
 
I'm all for this, depending on the crime.

So only for petty crimes then, since the hardcore ones dont get out..?

In addition, I'd like many others not yet in prison to be sterilized.

YEA!... lets do it to orphans from minorities, criminal minorities, the insane or mentally handicapped... and how about bankers and politicians and those sneaky Muslims and Jews and certain Christian sects?

No one should be forced or coerced into sterilization ever... we did this for most of the 20th century and its barbaric and will be abused by sick people.
 
" I " approve of sterilization, but in no way forced .

Give these women an option or two and you can cut back on abortions and children growing up in poverty with ex-con parents.
My solution is this.

If a woman comes in an applies for social services due to a child conceived, that a condition of the use of "other people's money" requires her and the father to have their tubes tied.

Now of course, there would be reasonable exceptions in place but if a couple is to be irresponsible or unlucky and have birth control fail, without the means to support the child themselves, then shouldn't we protect the people's money from having to incur such a cost again?
 
Btw "Libertarian Left" has to be the most contradictory political ID I've ever seen.

Yep.

I hav't heard a reason for that label I agree with yet.
 
Sarcogito said:
I’m not advocating the woman have the children. I think it is foolish for her to keep having children. I am saying the State should not have the authority to force an adult to undergo a surgical procedure.
So what's your solution to keep her from having more at the states expense?
Sarcogito said:
No, illogical would be if I claimed to want to live in a free society while at the same time advocating that the State should has dominion over our bodies.
Then maybe the state should not pay for the support you think?
 
Do they also force male inmates to be sterilized so they do not continue procreating?

Generally, it was something that was infamously thrust on the women, but yes, men had been sterilized too. This was where the intersection of the disabled, the poor, homosexuals, and the non-white felt the thrust of government and the professional classes. This is why the following thought is wrong-headed:

I can find nothing wrong with the concept, only the execution. Everything has been done badly before and everything is a slippery slope. So, no changes should ever be made in anything because everything leads somewhere bad?

Look at what your government is up to now simply because the technology exists to do it. If only we hadn't invented cameras or the internet, we'd be so much more free. So, for my postulations, I presume it will be done correctly and that it will advance society, not impair it.

Speck thinks that crime has no social component to it, but it does. That was why poor white or colored women were all too frequently thrust into the label of delinquent and feeble-minded. Both of those labels were scientifically assumed to lead to rape, petty crimes, murder, and just overall mental deficiencies spread to future generations. That was why society's undesirables were among the first to be targeted for the procedure, and that the technology of bureaucracy allowed for a systematized attack on them. Even prior to government authorization, professionals took it upon themselves to consider that these actions were needed to advance society, that at the very least, not allowing consent (or obscuring it through unrelated questions, or perhaps just pressure) in this one case would save the life of a child not yet born under conditions deemed bad. With the government on their side, it was open season, and only really became a thing of the past by the 1960s. However, cases still exist today, and society largely may not want to protest unless it involves accepted protected classes. If it involves those under gray areas, you will find a number of people willing to do it for society and for the next born. Criminals, the mentally or physically disabled, perhaps those who are homosexual, and so forth, it somehow seems more acceptable to go to this radical step.
 
Last edited:
Guess the eugenics attitude of the early 20th century is still alive and well on the right.

And on the Left. Even when they pretend to care about the supposed minority in question, you'll might find those who fall for the "compassion" of neo-eugenics to be just as disgusting.
 
Last edited:
While I do agree that what they did was ****ed up - this doesn't really make me feel bad. Instead, it strengthens my views held in regard to poverty and pregnancy:

"As soon as he found out that I had five kids, he suggested that I look into getting it done," Christina Cordero, a former inmate at Valley State Prison, said of the institution's OB-GYN Dr. James Heinrich.

"The closer I got to my due date, the more he talked about it. He made me feel like a bad mother if I didn't do it," the 34-year-old who spent two years behind bars for auto theft said. "Today, I wish I would have never had it done."

Nikki Montano, a pregnant mother-of-six when incarcerated in 2008 for burglary, forgery and receiving stolen property while battling drug addiction, had the procedure done after the birth of her seventh child.
She said she was never told why it was being done but agreed to it when asked.

They ARE in fact ****ty mothers - 5 kids, 6 kids and they don't want to be sterilized? They want to continue to have more because at child 3, poor, and living in a shack they didn't feel it was enough? Did they care to use birth control? They can't tell me their illegal activities supported the family adequately, either. And whose looking out for the kids while they are in prison? THE STATE.

I often argue that, though we're animals, we're not ensnared by our nature to reproduce - but women like this really make me wonder.

I just can't feel bad for them - I can't. Yeesh.

When you don't make the RIGHT choices for yourself someone else WILL do that for you. I cannot really hold it against California. Sorry - I can understand their decision completely, though it violate one form of rights - not doing so enables these mothers to just be ****ing retarded idiots.
 
So only for petty crimes then, since the hardcore ones dont get out..?



YEA!... lets do it to orphans from minorities, criminal minorities, the insane or mentally handicapped... and how about bankers and politicians and those sneaky Muslims and Jews and certain Christian sects?

No one should be forced or coerced into sterilization ever... we did this for most of the 20th century and its barbaric and will be abused by sick people.

The difference is I'm not looking at it thru faulty eugenics theory, but as population control and weeding out the millions of would-be awful parents out there. A lot of prisoners breed like mad when they get out, which benefits no one. I'm talking about this generation, not removing 'bad genes' from the species. However, your banker and politicians proposals are very tempting as well....
 
Back
Top Bottom