Eugenics or common sense?

[Frodo]

All right, here is the question: If the court has taken away the children of low life parents, should the court also mandate sterilization, temporary or permanent?

Situation: My wife comes across the lowest human debris in her line of work. Quite often a woman has so many different fathers (ejaculators) for here 5 or more kids, she can't remember their names. Then she hooks up with Mr. Lowlife who beats her and the kids or the kids starve while parents cook meth on the stove. The court steps in and takes the kids away. Next thing you know, she has more kids and they are doing no better. I am not kidding, some of these women are on their 9th child. Child protection just keeps coming back to take them away. I swear, my cows put more thought into family planning and are more particular about who they mate with than these women.

Moral dilemma: If you have to take away the living kids, why do we allow them to breed. Mind you, this is all part of due process and I see no problem with it once you have already determined that they are unfit parents. Yes, this would apply to the males too. In other words, if it is moral and legal to remove the children from them, why is it not moral and legal to sterilize them?

 

[Cerise]

Ooooh, that question was beat with the ugly stick.


Are the subjects husband and wife??

And, should they be allowed to collect welfare if they can still procreate??

Next, should they be allowed to cast a vote as long as they are dependent on the gov??

 

[Gonz]

If the woman is on any kind of public assistance, we (society) have a say.

If she's not, then no. We are all allowed to be scumbags at our own expense.

 

[Frodo]

Are the subjects husband and wife??

First off, this is not an isolated case by any means. It is way too common. Secondly, marriage requires some form of abstract thought, which these people are incapable of. Apparently, spreading their thighs every time a drunk man walks by is an instinct.

 

[Gonz]

You're my neighbor?

 

[Cerise]

Aparently......

The state should pay for a shrink to guide them through their esteem issues. And send them to some classes for it, too.

 

[Winky]

Eugenics it's worked everytime it's been tried.

You see it is quite simple. The mistake being made is in the
'taking away' of the children.

This is interference by the State where there is no mandate.

I do not have even the slightest hope that you could even begin
to grasp this concept, therefore the dilemma you find yourself in.
You appear to advocate the State seizing a citizen’s offspring
but somehow recoil in horror of the logical Hitler like next step
of sterilizing the offender? Why not just continue down this merry path?

Next stop the ovens?
That is where you dispose of garbage is it not?

 

[Cerise]

You see it is quite simple. Why not just continue down this merry path?

Hey! Are you saying you can't pick your friend's nose?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

There was once an all natural process we used to call "survival of the fittest," which has in large part, has been eliminated in the United States.

A must-see movie is Idiocracy, its a glimpse into the future..

 

[Winky]

I believe it was arguably the finest President of the 20th century that said:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are:

'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

 

[2minkey]

golly if i could get past the poor spelling and language usage i might be able to offer an opinion.

hey frodo - not sure you're really who you say you are since you write like a five year-old. pilots i've known were real sharp... you write like a welfare momma.

 

[Winky]

Lead us out of the moral quagmire in which we find ourselves.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

golly if i could get past the poor spelling and language usage i might be able to offer an opinion.

hey frodo - not sure who you're really who you say you are since you write like a five year-old. pilots i've known were real sharp... you write like a welfare momma.

It's not like he was writing letters to Hadji.

Just as well though, your opinion doesn't differ much from this post anyway.

 

[Gato_Solo]

golly if i could get past the poor spelling and language usage i might be able to offer an opinion.

hey frodo - not sure who you're really who you say you are since you write like a five year-old. pilots i've known were real sharp... you write like a welfare momma.

Perhaps it was hypoxia?

Anyway...he's going on about welfare mothers who continually have children by different sperm-donors and cannot take care of any of them, and that also 'hook up' with abusers and have their children removed.

 

[Winky]

And this affects the rest of us how?

Oh I know, we have to pay for it.

Cuz why?

I did re-read offending verbiage and yes it is painful indeed.
It does generate a multifaceted discomfort.
sic

 

[Gato_Solo]

And this affects the rest of us how?

Oh I know, we have to pay for it.

Cuz why?

I did re-read offending verbiage and yes it is painful indeed.
It does generate a multifaceted discomfort.
sic

Compassion for ones fellow man, while a desirable trait, should not come in a forcibly, but, rather, from one person to another...

Indeed...the receipt of compassion should be different if you get shot in the foot through malice, accident, or self-infliction.

 

[Winky]

Whereby is the greater sin?
Relieving the parent(s) of their responsibility
or the vain attempt to foist this duty
on society at large?
Then again , perhaps eugenics is just getting a bad rap?

 

[catocom]

You're my neighbor?

You see it is quite simple. The mistake being made is in the
'taking away' of the children.

This is interference by the State where there is no mandate.

I do not have even the slightest hope that you could even begin
to grasp this concept, therefore the dilemma you find yourself in.
You appear to advocate the State seizing a citizen’s offspring
but somehow recoil in horror of the logical Hitler like next step
of sterilizing the offender? Why not just continue down this merry path?

Next stop the ovens?
That is where you dispose of garbage is it not?

I agree in most part.

...
If a kid dies, take her off the streets for life, and no conjugal visits either.

 

[paul_valaru]

Moral dilema: If you have to take away the living kids, why do we allow them to breed. Mind you, this is all part of due process and I see no problem with it once you have already determined that they are unfit parents. Yes, this would apply to the males too. In other words, if it is moral and legal to remove the children from them, why is it not moral and legal to serilize them?

It's the path it leads down that is the problem. Who gets to choose? There was other countries that did sterilizations, it didn't end well. Canada and the US used to sterilize people in institutions.

 

[Cerise]

It's the path it leads down that is the problem. Who gets to choose?

Fortunately for America, we have a Science Czar to decide for us........


Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, John Holdren

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people - respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included - have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis).

In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinate interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed." - p838