• 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

specklebang said:
I prefer to hope it will lead use to a mentally healthier society.
Click to expand...

No, it can only lead to greater evil.

When a committee, or individual, has the power to decide who is 'mentally healthy' or not then we can throw in the towel. Luckily there are, so far, enough good people who will stand up against this craziness, until they too are fearful that this same committee may decide that they are 'mentally unhealthy' as well.

There are many who disagree with you on this point. Would you want any of them filling in a form saying you are mentally unhealthy?
 
You make a claim of "such dramatic repercussions" . What were those dramatic repercussions? Just bear in mind that we're discussing voluntary sterilization, not compulsory and that we're offering a reward, not seizing the persons.

I've usually found you interesting and articulate. You are sometimes very humorous and keen witted. But in your second sentence, you have shown a lack of a certain awareness.

The entire purpose of these boards is to hold a conversation with other people even though you are sitting at home. Each of us presents a position. I have a position and I'm defending that position using the most persuasive approach possible. I'm being articulate and polite. You have a different position. Asking you to also be articulate and polite is not unreasonable.

No matter what you discuss and how "right" or "wrong" you are or another party is, will not affect the fabric of reality by one iota. Nothing you post or I post will be taken into consideration by the rest of the world. This is a conversational exercise, we are not in the White House Situation Room.

Every time I see insults exchanged over partisan positions I flinch. Do you think the universe gives a rat's ass about your positions on abortion? NASA funding? Drug laws? It's ridiculous to believe so.

Now, here we are in a completely hypothetical discussion of eugenics. I've contributed to the conversation. I've expressed myself without rancor. Do you think that not agreeing with me would give you or anyone the right to be disrespectful? Do you think disagreement is a valid basis for refusing further conversation? Why are you even here? This isn't a hug-box. It's a debate board. At least half the people here disagree with you about something. Will you not communicate with them?

Please re-think your position. I've said some of what I have to say on the subject. I thought we were having some fun. If not, I can remove myself from the thread and you can wait until everybody here thinks that eugenics is a mortal sin. I would think that would be boring but....





Fiddytree said:
Some experiences had such dramatic repercussions that as a society we say ought to say "no more." These are not simple policy measures with consequences, these were policies that became a black mark for the entire western world.

Furthermore, I am sorry, but you don't deserve respectful discussion when you are literally advocating stripping individuals of basic human rights. This holds especially true for me when those you advocate sterilization for are people I personally know. Why should I, or anyone else give you respect?
Click to expand...
 
Fiddytree said:
No, I do not agree. That is an unreasonable demand. You are punishing the person with more than just stigma.
Click to expand...
Yes. Punishing them for being irresponsible. Punishing them for the entitlement attitude that society must provide for their mistakes. Creating an environment where the stigma acts as a deterrent for others not to make society provide for them.

Do you have a better solution?


Fiddytree said:
And if the child has a disability, which may require the use of public funds, because the child needs services?
Click to expand...
Did you miss this part:
Lord of planar said:
Now of course, there would be reasonable exceptions in place
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
You make a claim of "such dramatic repercussions" . What were those dramatic repercussions? Just bear in mind that we're discussing voluntary sterilization, not compulsory and that we're offering a reward, not seizing the persons.
Click to expand...

Because even when the procedure was said to be voluntary, it was not. We have a long history of that being the case. The coercion is also not wanted, because, just as that article discussed, it targeted people when they were most vulnerable. I am against coercion with reproductive rights, because it has and continues to be an extension of power being used against vulnerable populations.


The entire purpose of these boards is to hold a conversation with other people even though you are sitting at home. Each of us presents a position. I have a position and I'm defending that position using the most persuasive approach possible. I'm being articulate and polite. You have a different position. Asking you to also be articulate and polite is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then may I ask when the last time was that you had a substantive discussion on the merits of slavery or genocide? Did you and your sparring mate chuckle at the idea of wholesale killing some specified ethnic group? If it is your supposition that this is just any ordinary policy measure, then it is you who are unaware.

Now, here we are in a completely hypothetical discussion of eugenics.
Click to expand...

It's lived history, Speck. It is not hypothetical.

No, Speck, it shouldn't be "fun" to talk about this.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes. Punishing them for being irresponsible. Punishing them for the entitlement attitude that society must provide for their mistakes. Creating an environment where the stigma acts as a deterrent for others not to make society provide for them.
Click to expand...

There are means of tying dollars to worker programs or education, to setting limits on amount of dollars and duration of services. Instead of considering that to be the proper course, you argue the necessity to go much farther.

On the side, do you believe in the necessity to clamp down on the legalities of abortion?

Did you miss this part:
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it. My prodding question was in order to discover if you were considering different variables.
 
I thought we were discussing prisoners. Now we're discussing me? Even now the state can detain people for mental illness.. If anything, I'm I'm trying to cut the prisoners some slack.

Everything leads to greater evils. The good news is that the many people who disagree with me will win the day.



Grant said:
No, it can only lead to greater evil.

When a committee, or individual, has the power to decide who is 'mentally healthy' or not then we can throw in the towel. Luckily there are, so far, enough good people who will stand up against this craziness, until they too are fearful that this same committee may decide that they are 'mentally unhealthy' as well.

There are many who disagree with you on this point. Would you want any of them filling in a form saying you are mentally unhealthy?
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
I guess they shouldn't have ****ed up and got sent to the joint.
Click to expand...

What an absurd comment.

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.
Click to expand...

Love the eugenicist rhetoric in the form of dehumanizing the individuals in question.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Giving the state the power to decide what is right for our bodies, to force surgery upon us without consent, is dangerous. Who in the state decides? Based on what criteria? What keeps them from broadening the criteria so that what began as acceptable limits expand over time to include anyone who is an annoyance to those in charge? Yes, I'm going full on slippery slope.

The U.S. has a history of forced sterilization. Can we not learn from that?
 
specklebang said:
I thought we were discussing prisoners. Now we're discussing me? Even now the state can detain people for mental illness.. If anything, I'm I'm trying to cut the prisoners some slack.

Everything leads to greater evils. The good news is that the many people who disagree with me will win the day.
Click to expand...

No, it was 'you' as in an example. It is that they can do it to anyone, you or I or our neighbor, if a committee feels we are mentally unhealthy. We could easily then get rid of someone for their political or religious beliefs if it came to that. That oft mentioned 'slippery slope' is visible from where I'm sitting.
 
Fiddytree said:
There are means of tying dollars to worker programs or education, to setting limits on amount of dollars and duration of services.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. What do we have to show for it?


Fiddytree said:
Instead of considering that to be the proper course, you argue the necessity to go much farther.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.


Fiddytree said:
On the side, do you believe in the necessity to clamp down on the legalities of abortion?
Click to expand...
I would tie this to government paid abortions as well.

My whole viewpoint is based on my solid belief that we are a free people, and that our freedoms should not be curtailed, until we impose of others. Let a person do as they please unless they are asking for help. That help then, may come with a price. If the reason the help is needed, is because of fault of the individual asking, then I have no moral difficulties in requiring that in return, we do what is necessary so the problem is not a repeat problem.
 
I see there is a disparity in our views of the art of discussion.

Unfortunately, I view all my discussions as being fun. I consider my posting to have zero impact on the world and thus I view it as 100% entertainment.

I'd be happy to discuss slavery and genocide. If I find a thread about it, I'll participate, just as I have here with my applicable opinions and suppositions. Awareness is in the eye of the beholder.



Fiddytree said:
Because even when the procedure was said to be voluntary, it was not. We have a long history of that being the case. The coercion is also not wanted, because, just as that article discussed, it targeted people when they were most vulnerable. I am against coercion with reproductive rights, because it has and continues to be an extension of power being used against vulnerable populations.




If that is the case, then may I ask when the last time was that you had a substantive discussion on the merits of slavery or genocide? Did you and your sparring mate chuckle at the idea of wholesale killing some specified ethnic group? If it is your supposition that this is just any ordinary policy measure, then it is you who are unaware.



It's lived history, Speck. It is not hypothetical.

No, Speck, it shouldn't be "fun" to talk about this.
Click to expand...
 
Gina said:
Giving the state the power to decide what is right for our bodies, to force surgery upon us without consent, is dangerous. Who in the state decides? Based on what criteria? What keeps them from broadening the criteria so that what began as acceptable limits expand over time to include anyone who is an annoyance to those in charge? Yes, I'm going full on slippery slope.

The U.S. has a history of forced sterilization. Can we not learn from that?
Click to expand...

Well - the criteria was nulled several years ago. Aside that - it wasn't widespread practice.

And apparently they did get consent - it was just coerced.

Immoral - yes
Unethical - yes
Pitiable - no
 
specklebang said:
However, this conundrum is composed of two elements. Concept and Execution. The concept is fundamentally sound. We slightly decrease breeding by criminals (the methodology is yet to be discussed) and slightly reduce future burdens on society. Most criminals are incredibly dumb. A frequent defense is that they are abused, retarded and their IQ too low to make them responsible for their crimes. Not a sure defense, but frequent enough to identify what kind of person robs a liquor store at gunpoint. Even without the camera issue. Even the possibility of return fire. Even without thought of the risk/reward equation. Most criminals are not Bernie Maddoff.

I'm a die-hard dystopia fan and I can see many Gattaca's ahead. When only the rich can have their genetics modified. Only the rich can make backup copies of themselves. Only the rich have space yachts. But, really, that's not the topic here unless we must extrapolate hundreds of years into the future. If we're that far sighted, why are we still driving cars and contaminating the earth with the residue? So, it seems to me that this is a good place to start. Initially, only people with something to gain will accept this solution. Prisoners.

I prefer to hope it will lead use to a mentally healthier society.
Click to expand...

The concept is not fundamentally sound when the subject is human reproduction. Animal husbandry, farming? Yes. But once you are talking about human beings, it is fundamentally, morally, reprehensible. We are not animals to be selectively bred or not. Because eugenics focuses on those with the smallest voices in our society, the poor and disabled, it is inherently unfair and biased.

Focusing on prison inmates is not even a fair criteria. People screw up and lots of people go straight afterward. Many don't, but beyond their debt to society being paid by incarceration, they don't owe society their human reproductive rights. There are also those people who are imprisoned wrongly. One cannot say the judicial system is always fair and is therefore an accurate way to target who should be forcibly sterilized.

In another post you said the OP is not about forcible sterilization. The article gives examples which would refute that. One woman was badgered as she was on the delivery table. Without full and informed consent, given free from the pressure of a doctor or agent of the state, it is at best coercion and force at the worst. If this wasn't you, my apologies. I can't find the post to quote it.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - the criteria was nulled several years ago. Aside that - it wasn't widespread practice.

And apparently they did get consent - it was just coerced.

Immoral - yes
Unethical - yes
Pitiable - no
Click to expand...

Given the state coerced them, the state doesn't shouldn't be permitted to decide.

Fair enough, I'm not asking for pity for them, I'm saying that agents of the state and doctors not be allowed to go on coercing. There should be no more cases like this. Ever.
 
What I said was my post was not about forced sterilization. I didn't speak for the OP.


Gina said:
The concept is not fundamentally sound when the subject is human reproduction. Animal husbandry, farming? Yes. But once you are talking about human beings, it is fundamentally, morally, reprehensible. We are not animals to be selectively bred or not. Because eugenics focuses on those with the smallest voices in our society, the poor and disabled, it is inherently unfair and biased.

Focusing on prison inmates is not even a fair criteria. People screw up and lots of people go straight afterward. Many don't, but beyond their debt to society being paid by incarceration, they don't owe society their human reproductive rights. There are also those people who are imprisoned wrongly. One cannot say the judicial system is always fair and is therefore an accurate way to target who should be forcibly sterilized.

In another post you said the OP is not about forcible sterilization. The article gives examples which would refute that. One woman was badgered as she was on the delivery table. Without full and informed consent, given free from the pressure of a doctor or agent of the state, it is at best coercion and force at the worst. If this wasn't you, my apologies. I can't find the post to quote it.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
What I said was my post was not about forced sterilization. I didn't speak for the OP.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I couldn't find that post again after I submitted my previous reply.

As to the rest of my reply to you?
 
As I've said earlier, my thoughts on this are not really relevant. So far, all I've accomplished was to disturb other people here and realistically, outside this incident, any effort to improve our population in any way is sheer Science Fiction. We hold even the dumbest, most useless humans in such high regard that we import them and encourage them and our own domestic failures to breed under state sponsorship. We literally pay people to have children.

So, there is no danger that Eugenics will be implemented. Some prisoners will now be lavishly compensated by the taxpayers and the scandal will be brushed aside. Eventually, IDIOCRACY will be historically relevant.

I surrender:)



Gina said:
The concept is not fundamentally sound when the subject is human reproduction. Animal husbandry, farming? Yes. But once you are talking about human beings, it is fundamentally, morally, reprehensible. We are not animals to be selectively bred or not. Because eugenics focuses on those with the smallest voices in our society, the poor and disabled, it is inherently unfair and biased.

Focusing on prison inmates is not even a fair criteria. People screw up and lots of people go straight afterward. Many don't, but beyond their debt to society being paid by incarceration, they don't owe society their human reproductive rights. There are also those people who are imprisoned wrongly. One cannot say the judicial system is always fair and is therefore an accurate way to target who should be forcibly sterilized.

In another post you said the OP is not about forcible sterilization. The article gives examples which would refute that. One woman was badgered as she was on the delivery table. Without full and informed consent, given free from the pressure of a doctor or agent of the state, it is at best coercion and force at the worst. If this wasn't you, my apologies. I can't find the post to quote it.
Click to expand...

Gina said:
Fair enough, I couldn't find that post again after I submitted my previous reply.

As to the rest of my reply to you?
Click to expand...
 
Gina said:
Given the state coerced them, the state doesn't shouldn't be permitted to decide.

Fair enough, I'm not asking for pity for them, I'm saying that agents of the state and doctors not be allowed to go on coercing. There should be no more cases like this. Ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree.

There's just this part of me that really wants to club these idiot women over the head.
 
a351 said:
What an absurd comment.



Love the eugenicist rhetoric in the form of dehumanizing the individuals in question.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of Margaret Sanger?
 
American said:
Should the State have the authority to force us to pay for those children?
Click to expand...

I admit these types of questions are getting difficult for me to answer. On one hand I find myself being increasingly against the State. Believing the State just makes things worse. Believing that so much of the poverty we have is in large part due to the actions of the State and the Big Money interests that the State props up. And the LAST thing I want to do is to give the State any more power than it has already taken. But then, at the same time, the children had nothing at all to do with the situation they are in. And if the State is, in part, responsible for the mess they are in then shouldn’t it help ensure they are provided for?

I am conflicted. To be honest I am on the verge of preferring anarchism to this police state we have. But we don’t live in an anarchist society. And even if the day comes that the People decide to dismantle the State, it makes a difference in what order it is dismantled. Does it make sense to stop welfare BEFORE stopping all the policies that contribute to making welfare necessary in the first place?

I don’t know.
 
Sarcogito said:
I admit these types of questions are getting difficult for me to answer.
Click to expand...

I find it simply down to the concept of responsibility. When others impose on us because of their lack of responsibility, shouldn't we also have the right to dictate the terms of that help? There are those who call me authoritarian over this issue. My response then is don't tax me for social programs if I don't get a say in how my money is spend. Since we are divided on issues like these, I tell those who support social programs to start a charity, and have like minded individual contribute. Just stay out of my pocket if I disagree with how the money is spent.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I find it simply down to the concept of responsibility. When others impose on us because of their lack of responsibility, shouldn't we also have the right to dictate the terms of that help? There are those who call me authoritarian over this issue. My response then is don't tax me for social programs if I don't get a say in how my money is spend. Since we are divided on issues like these, I tell those who support social programs to start a charity, and have like minded individual contribute. Just stay out of my pocket if I disagree with how the money is spent.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree.

Thus - in cases as this "I'm pregnant with my 7th child - and I'm in jail" I think a judge would be fully within reason to court order the procedure. . . . I did think about this for quite some time and I feel it's appropriate because the state/federal government become responsible to support said 7 unwanted children who REFUSED to use birth control or make the decision on her own.

There's no excuse to have that many children when you OBVIOUSLY will not care for them on your own.

I don't believe reproduction is an inalienable right.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Been there, done that. What do we have to show for it?



Absolutely.



I would tie this to government paid abortions as well.

My whole viewpoint is based on my solid belief that we are a free people, and that our freedoms should not be curtailed, until we impose of others. Let a person do as they please unless they are asking for help. That help then, may come with a price. If the reason the help is needed, is because of fault of the individual asking, then I have no moral difficulties in requiring that in return, we do what is necessary so the problem is not a repeat problem.
Click to expand...

I don't see the need to attack human dignity because it involves taxpayer funds. You can argue about the disbursement of funds and the duration of such, which we would of course disagree on, but there is no excuse for this. I am shocked that I continually see libertarians, who are ordinarily so concerned about the tyranny of the government infringing upon our civil liberties, argue in favor of the one of the most egregious acts of human rights violations possible...just because it involves getting money from taxpayers.
 
specklebang said:
As I've said earlier, my thoughts on this are not really relevant. So far, all I've accomplished was to disturb other people here and realistically, outside this incident, any effort to improve our population in any way is sheer Science Fiction. We hold even the dumbest, most useless humans in such high regard that we import them and encourage them and our own domestic failures to breed under state sponsorship. We literally pay people to have children.

So, there is no danger that Eugenics will be implemented. Some prisoners will now be lavishly compensated by the taxpayers and the scandal will be brushed aside. Eventually, IDIOCRACY will be historically relevant.

I surrender:)
Click to expand...

There's no danger of it? Come on, man. Right now it is somewhat easy for guardians to sterilize and tinker with an individual they have legal authority over, without informed consent. It is common for social workers and doctors to coerce families into giving up their parental rights so that they can put the child wherever they want. We keep hearing the platitudes of wanting to improve the genetic pool of humanity through various screenings, the constant derision of life that is not physical norm or neurotypical from the political Right, Left, and Center. The lure of the Left toward neo-eugenics is very distressing. It's still a strong worry when your population is still very much looked down on and they are used as objects of convenience (or wanted as objects of convenience).
 
Last edited:
Apparently I've managed to overlook this situation. It sounds like Brave New World started without me. Oh well, I'm not terribly surprised, anything is possible. Could you give me one good link to this problem overall, not an individual scandal. Maybe I'll learn something.


Fiddytree said:
There's no danger of it? Come on, man. Right now it is somewhat easy for guardians to sterilize and tinker with an individual they have legal authority over, without informed consent. It is common for social workers and doctors to coerce families into giving up their parental rights so that they can put the child wherever they want. We keep hearing the platitudes of wanting to improve the genetic pool of humanity through various screenings, the constant derision of life that is not physical norm or neurotypical from the political Right, Left, and Center. The lure of the Left toward neo-eugenics is very distressing. It's still a strong worry when your population is still very much looked down on and they are used as objects of convenience (or wanted as objects of convenience).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom