I've said it before ... the stupid people are outbreeding the smart people. We are in major trouble ...

This has been tried...information is out there in so many forms nowadays. For anyone to say that "they didn't know" about birth control and how a person gets pregnant...sorry, I don't buy it.

I don't see anything wrong with sterlizing child molesters/rapists/pervy relatives into incest or any type of sex offender. I figure if they want to use their genitals as weapons, they don't deserve to freely use them anymore..period. This would cut down the amount of babies conceived from rape. I mean, my god, I once read about a 10 yr old GIRL who was inpregnanted by her FATHER!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck sterlization for this creep and people like him...castrate his punk ass! :angry:

This has been tried...information is out there in so many forms nowadays. For anyone to say that "they didn't know" about birth control and how a person gets pregnant...sorry, I don't buy it.

I believe he means in the more general sense, the more educated an individual is the less likely they are to have kids. Same goes for entire countries, the more educated/civilized countries aren't the ones with population problems...

Only in the long term. And I'm making sure my descendants won't have to worry about it (by not having any).

But guns are fine

Absolutely.

Ah, but it's already illegal for most felons and violent criminals to have guns.

Huh? Where did i say that??? :confused:

My apologies Lady S, I thought you were against greater gun control.

Oh, I don't know about that....after all, look at China.

Of course, China's got the right idea. They offer incentives to have only one child, such as free schooling and the guarantee of a job after graduation....there are a few other things they offer, as well.

I only planned to have one child. I only wanted one, and that's what I have. If my government gave me free schooling for her, and guaranteed her a job after graduation, that would rock.

I think that the more educated a person is, the more they PLAN whether or not to, and when, to have children. Like it or not, when the government gives people money for every child they spit out, that there are those who are going to keep spitting out kids cause they're too lazy to get off their asses and work (NO, I am not saying EVERYONE does this, so chill out). Anybody who doesn't see the evidence right in front of their eyes every day has their eyes closed.


And for those who made/agreed with the "Right-Wing" comment, I ask this:

Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.

Do you REALLY think that child molesters, and rapists, and abusers and people who habitually neglect their children, thus endangering their lives, should be allowed to have MORE little ready-made victims? Pedophiles and rapists tend to abuse their own children, stepchildren, and younger members of their families.

Do you REALLY think that people who abuse drugs should be able to procreate, passing the addiction, and the resultant brain damage, along to innocent children? These people don't care about themselves, and they certainly don't care enough about the fetus to quit while pregnant, so what makes you think that they will care about it once it's born? Especially if they have a history of this (like the girl I cited). Don't you think that they should prove that they can stay drug-free for at least a year before being allowed to consider procreation?

It seems that the rights of the deviant are more important to you guys than the rights of the potential person or the innocent child. Some people should NOT be allowed to procreate, and I see no problem with making sure they don't.
They've claimed enough victims as it is. No sense in giving them the go-ahead to grow their own supply.

AND...

I did NOT advocate sterilization for the poor. That was an assumption you guys made.


Sidhe

It's a cunundrum. On one hand, I agree with shee. Why would we allow the aforementioned types of people to have MORE kids? yet, on the other hand, who are we to ALLOW it in the first place. Free means free, right? then, again, if we stand back and watch these welfare abusers and foster care kid generators make more and more babies, don;t they then impinge on OUR rights? I mean, we are the ones supporting them through the state and federally funded foster care programs.

I honestly don;t know how I feel about this. My gut says sterilize them permanently after the second offense..... my brain says, Shut up, gut! once they start that shit, we won't be able to stop them.

I agree that if you cannot take care of your child, you should not have more. I also agree that the state should not have ANY control over our bodies.

I guess in the end it comes right down to personal freedom. When you have to guess, err on the side of caution. In my mind, the loss of control over our bodies is worse than the scenario described in the beginning of this thread.

i'm glad I'm not King.

"Lady" Sidhe,
are you deliberately trolling here, or do you actually believe the vile filth that spews from your maw?

No Lady Sidhe you did not, however Wolf posted "I'm all for everyone on public assistance OR having children in DHS/CYS custody having to be on either the Norplant or the Depot Provera shots." I was poking fun at more than just your posts LS.

Oh and
Perhaps ( if indeed the number of people having children in order to claim welfare is anything other than negligible when compared with what I would imagine are the majority of claimants who simply need a little assistance ) it might be useful if your government made social provision a) easier to get and b) not dependant upon having young dependants.



Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?


Especially if they have a history of this?.......ESPECIALLY? So......you still think they should be disallowed even if they do NOT have a history of this? Is being a drug addict enough reason alone to warrant enforced sterilisation? Again, do you not see how dangerous it could be to set such a precedent? What if the prospective mother can't stop smoking? is a hopeless nicotine addict? Do "we" step in and sterilise her? Who decides to do this? How enforcable would such a measure be? How about marijuana? There was a time when the medical fraternity in the USA swore blind that marijuana made you mad. Which drugs do we consider dangerous enough as to require the protection of the unborn foetus from them? Alcohol? Heroine? Cannabis? Crack cocaine? Tobacco?

I understand ( I really do) your concern for the unborn child. But it strikes me that we really must protect the rights of the currently extant human being rather than the idea of future progeny

For all you capital punishment, no excuses, sterilise the unfit and keep us clean mob
Google Search Results.....Follow the View as HTML link if you are unable to view page.
{The link which heads directly to the HTML page for that site doesnt work, hence this edit :P Its the first result on that page}
What I found most interesting was this part....-:


I think basically Lady Sidhe you are verging onto the territory of Social Darwinism of the very worst kind. I fight shy of calling you a fascist, that would be rude