Judge orders couple not to have children

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by DanaC
So, if a person had a strong probablity of passing along genes which may result in severe disablement of their future child, is it their choice or the governent's as to whether or not they take that risk?

That's what we're discussing.

The point is for everyone to put forth ideas until everyone agrees with me.

[DanaC]

*Raises en eyebrow and lights another joint*

So.....which do you think Trouble ( do you mind if I call you Trouble?) Whose decision do you think it should be? your last post left me unsure as to what you meant *smiles* thats why I sought clarification. I am talking about a non disabled prospective parent, with a high probability that their future child would be born severely disabled ( such as downsyndrome) In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?

[jaguar]

I've always thought if people do that that risk the state should NOT be picking up the tab for special education, massive medical expenses......

Problem is that hurts the kid, not the irrisponsable parents.

[glatt]

Originally posted by DanaC
In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?

Just so we are all on the same page here, we're talking about strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming so you can administer the anesthesia and then cut out some of her reproductive organs.

Or maybe it would be a different technique:

Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.

Edited to say that it also might be a man you are strapping down, against his will, while he's kicking and screaming, so you can do a little of the old snip snip.

[TheLorax]

Wow, I’m speechless and for damn sure I am seldom speechless.

[OnyxCougar]

My husband brought this point up last night:

The generalisation here is that we're doing this to druggies/people who have been convicted of neglect, etc. So ostensibly, to protect the children. This includes children in the womb, yes? Can't be having those women knowingly and willingly doing hard drugs, not caring about their fetus, right?

Then you must concede that what is in the womb is a child (the one you're saying you want to protect), therefore, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you are pro-life.

IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.

My husband says you can't have it both ways. Either it's a child at conception, and we protect it from druggie mothers and abusive husbands (charging him for murder if he kills it in the womb), and should enact provisions to prevent it from neglect/abuse, or it's merely an embryo until the moment it is released from the mother (via vaginal or ceserean delivery), and it is afforded no protection until that time.

In addition, glatt is right in that we are talking about PERMANENT solutions here, because even if we put norplant in, the woman can carve it out of herself. This means that the idea of "until she is off drugs for a year" won't work.

Also, something else I thought of....the question was brought up as to what would constitute "retarded" enough to employ the sterilisation, and I think that would be if a person was unable to care for themselves at all, needed 24/7 care, then they most certainly should not be having children.

Again, I agree with the intent of the process, but don't agree with the implementation. You can either live in a free society or not. I choose to live in a free society. If I wanted to be denied the choice of having children or not, I'd go live in the Middle East and get my clitoris cut out and be denied an education and a whole bunch of other things I take for granted as a British/American citizen.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by glatt


Just so we are all on the same page here, we're talking about strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming so you can administer the anesthesia and then cut out some of her reproductive organs.

Or maybe it would be a different technique:

Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.

Edited to say that it also might be a man you are strapping down, against his will, while he's kicking and screaming, so you can do a little of the old snip snip.

exactly. i said in my earlier comments that this is a confusing issue, but at the end of it all there is the operating table.

no way. no how. the rest of the argument is mute.

what happens when the inevitable death as a result of surgical error occurs?


perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.

[glatt]

I have no problems with incentives.

The government can give tax breaks (carrot), add taxes (stick) etc. etc. They do it all the time.

However, to give them ultimate control is abhorrent to me.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by lumberjim

perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.

Well, I don't think penalisation works, because mainly, you can't get blood from a turnip, and the only option besides financial is jailtime. Since our jails are already overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, this would not be a good thing.

Which brings us to the other point my husband brought up, which is that if the woman was in jail for doing drugs, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. He thinks that we should be enforcing the laws we already have rather than making up new ones.

This ties into the death penalty thing. If the person that did the (capital) crime confesses to it, or there is irrefutable proof, then kill him. This is cheaper and opens up more space for people who should be jailed but aren't, thus helping the punishment system do it's job for lesser crimes.

And while we're on the discussion of forced sterilisation, lets talk about rapists and child molesters. Should the males be eunich'd? Would that really help? What about females? How does eunich'ing the males prevent them from violating in other ways (bottles, etc)?

Where does it end? Where is the line drawn? Isn't the greater good of the society worth the rights of one who willfully and consistantly breaks that society's rules?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by DanaC
*Raises en eyebrow and lights another joint*

So.....which do you think Trouble ( do you mind if I call you Trouble?) Whose decision do you think it should be? your last post left me unsure as to what you meant *smiles* thats why I sought clarification. I am talking about a non disabled prospective parent, with a high probability that their future child would be born severely disabled ( such as downsyndrome) In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?

I've been called trouble for quite a while now. Adding your name to the list is no biggie.

Now, parents who knowingly jeopardize their progeny by willingly taking the risk should not be able to suck off of the gov't teat for an infintie amount of time or money. They knew the possible outcome and should not be able to flout that fact.

The sterilization in the context of this question, your quoted post, is that if the child is profoundly retard, Down's, etc, that person would be sterilized, not necessarily the parents.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by lumberjim
perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively.

Whoohoo! I wish I could get incentives for not adding to the population.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
My husband brought this point up last night:

The generalisation here is that we're doing this to druggies/people who have been convicted of neglect, etc. So ostensibly, to protect the children. This includes children in the womb, yes? Can't be having those women knowingly and willingly doing hard drugs, not caring about their fetus, right?

Then you must concede that what is in the womb is a child (the one you're saying you want to protect), therefore, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you are pro-life.

IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.

My husband says you can't have it both ways. Either it's a child at conception, and we protect it from druggie mothers and abusive husbands (charging him for murder if he kills it in the womb), and should enact provisions to prevent it from neglect/abuse, or it's merely an embryo until the moment it is released from the mother (via vaginal or ceserean delivery), and it is afforded no protection until that time.

That's the problem with logic, if not used properly it's nothing more than a systematic way to make the wrong decisions.

Strictly speaking, I'm not interested in doing this "for the children." I'm interested in doing this for humanity. Now. before I get accused of megalomania, I'm speaking in the abstract, not because I'm some postern pounding preacher speaking about The Peepul.

I'm not pro-life(tm), I lean more towards choice, but I also believe that choice comes with responsibility.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

In addition, glatt is right in that we are talking about PERMANENT solutions here, because even if we put norplant in, the woman can carve it out of herself. This means that the idea of "until she is off drugs for a year" won't work.

The long-term chemical solution could be part of a program where the contraceptive is an option for reduced sentencing or also part of a pro-active aprt of the welfare program. Or, reduce benefits of people who don't subscribe to the free contraception programs available to them.

And I agree, some women just aren't cut out for the chemical solution.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

Also, something else I thought of....the question was brought up as to what would constitute "retarded" enough to employ the sterilisation, and I think that would be if a person was unable to care for themselves at all, needed 24/7 care, then they most certainly should not be having children.

I agree.

There are plenty of accepted (and acceptable) standards as to what constitutes profoundly retarded or incapable.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

Again, I agree with the intent of the process, but don't agree with the implementation. You can either live in a free society or not. I choose to live in a free society. If I wanted to be denied the choice of having children or not, I'd go live in the Middle East and get my clitoris cut out and be denied an education and a whole bunch of other things I take for granted as a British/American citizen.

I think that part of the idea that scares people most about this idea is that is to be broadly implemented and easily enforced. I don't think that it should be broadly administered but should be a penalty for a provable trend of profoundly poor decision making or as a result of something that affects you so profoundly that you are incapable of adhering to your responsibilities.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by lumberjim

exactly. i said in my earlier comments that this is a confusing issue, but at the end of it all there is the operating table.

no way. no how. the rest of the argument is mute.

How is it moot? This issue is going to be important in the future and like genetic research shouldn't there be some dialog about it before it becomes a pressing issue instead of an imminent one?

Originally posted by lumberjim

what happens when the inevitable death as a result of surgical error occurs?

Good question. Who gets sued? The doctor, the gov't, both?

Originally posted by lumberjim

perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.

Incentivizing won't do anything because that would require some effort on the part of the parent to be.

I can only really see penalizing people having any affect.

[Clodfobble]

IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.

Playing devil's advocate here, I don't think this ought to turn into an abortion debate... But here's a counter-example (and I apologize if it seems crass): The various animal rescue organizations around the country come and remove abused animals from their owners. A large percentage of these injured/diseased animals are immediately euthanized--the idea being that it is more humane to put them to sleep than to let them keep on living in such pain. In the same way, there could be a correlation between having an abortion versus carrying a crack baby to term, given that the baby will invariably suffer for many years. A painless abortion is in theory more humane. That is one way in which you could be in favor of stopping crack addicts from reproducing and yet still in favor of abortion.

Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.

Keep in mind, this is the same woman whom we will restrain, kicking and screaming, while we pry her abused baby from her arms and take it into foster care. That part already happens and no one says it shouldn't. The fact that she's kicking and screaming is inflammatory and irrelevant. In addition, while we're talking about direct methods, the Depo Provera shot involves no invasive procedure at all.

[glatt]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
[i]The fact that she's kicking and screaming is inflammatory and irrelevant.

I painted a picture with words.

Right now in other threads going on here in the Cellar, there are arguments about the use of war images. That in order to have an informed opinion about what war is, the images should be made available to the public. War is hell. People know this in the abstract, but images of it remind the public of that truth. Hopefully it will prevent wars from happening as easily in the future.

Talking in the abstract about sterilization while we all sit calmly at our keyboards is so clean and sanitary. So dignified. But we are talking about strapping people down and performing procedures on them against their will. It's worth at least mentioning that truth. It may be inflammatory, but it sure isn't irrelevant.