The mentally retarded
Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State
Drug addicts
Child abusers
Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)
Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation)
Anyone failing a psychological test
Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)
Girls under 18
Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights
While I am an AVID proponent of birth control, I don't believe there should be a state mandate for it. I believe that birth control and sterilization procedures should be subsidized for by the state, there should be birth control for men as well as women, and there should be comprehensive education for sex and birth control. However, I don't believe that the state should force such birth control on others. That's too much government interference in the private lives of people, and disrespects the reproductive rights of the people.
What about government incentives for sterilization?
Nope. It is not the government's job to provide incentives for the people. The government should provide these services so that anybody can have access to them whether they are wealthy or poor or man or woman. It is not up to the government to decide for the people or to push them to make one choice or another.
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.
In general, I am against this, for those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare); BUT if you take the King's coin...
It would solve a lot of problems. Their own and society's.
The government provides all sorts of other incentives, to businesses, farmers, drug companies, etc. They do this for the common good. Why not encourage long term welfare recipients, drug addicts, etc, to be sterilized?
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.
The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.
And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.
I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.
And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.
I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.
And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.
I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
I promise, no Howler Monkey activity from me. Although that's a hilarious visual.
To your post - you don't want to go down that road. I appreciate your honesty and I can see your concern in protecting the children and our society. I really mean that. I know your intentions are good.
But if we give the government that kind of power we are opening a door with a lot of scary stuff on the other side.
Less than 100 years ago there was another group of people that many citizens and bureaucrats wanted to have sterilized. They were considered "sexual perverts" and moral degenerates. I know the state of Oregon came close to getting their law passed, but it either failed at the very end or it was overturned by their Supreme Court.
Wanna guess which group of people our friends in Oregon wanted to forcefully sterilize?
---
I promise, no Howler Monkey activity from me. Although that's a hilarious visual.
To your post - you don't want to go down that road. I appreciate your honesty and I can see your concern in protecting the children and our society. I really mean that. I know your intentions are good.
But if we give the government that kind of power we are opening a door with a lot of scary stuff on the other side.
Less than 100 years ago there was another group of people that many citizens and bureaucrats wanted to have sterilized. They were considered "sexual perverts" and moral degenerates. I know the state of Oregon came close to getting their law passed, but it either failed at the very end or it was overturned by their Supreme Court.
Wanna guess which group of people our friends in Oregon wanted to forcefully sterilize?
---
We should start a political action committee.
Handsome bad-asses against crack-whores.
Except those people weren't hurting other people with their "degenerate" activity. Crack-whores who give birth to babies are chemically assaulting their newborns.
My concern would be giving our government more power than they already have.
I do what I can to amuse.
I understand your caution but there is a glaring fact that must be pointed out. My philosophy on sterilization of a drug addict is predicated on the drug addict having already committed biochemical assault on one child. It is a judicial response to a criminal act having already been tried and convicted. It is a response to the victimization of a child and to prevent it from occurring a second time.
It's not that far off from what we already have built in our judicial system in the cases of child rapists who are chemically castrated as a part of their probation.
In the scenario you point to, Oregon's attempt to sterilize what I assume must be homosexuals (because that seems to be what everyone uses to try to incite a reaction out of me as opposed to a response these days), was a matter of eugenics being applied. Which is totally inconsistent and illogical because most people who would support such a thing are the same ones who would scream to high heaven that homosexuality isn't genetic. Figure that one out. The forced sterilization of homosexuals, besides being illogical because homosexuals, by nature of being homosexuals, aren't prone to prolific breeding, fails to acknowledge a crime for which justice is being served and a victim or prevention of further victims.
On the surface, it appears to be a valid comparison but once you look at it a little deeper, it's like comparing apples and hubcaps.
Except those people weren't hurting other people with their "degenerate" activity. Crack-whores who give birth to babies are chemically assaulting their newborns.
Really, that's the only concern I have about it, too.
I think that any sterilization sentence should be executed after a trial by jury.
Okay. Fair enough. As I told Ethereal, I can't argue with your reasoning for wanting to sterilize women that are popping out crack babies. I get it.
My only concern, which you'll probably get sick of hearing in a lot of threads, is the power we're granting. I know it seems like a good idea to give our government the authority to stop an activity we don't like. But that's how we ended up with the tremendous overbearing government we have today.
---