Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

In certain cases, I am. Like the crack cocaine mothers who refuse to stop breeding. Ever seen a crack baby born? Ever looked at one and felt its agony and been unable to make it stop crying or to comfort it? Because there is not way to stop its suffering. If you can do that and not feel the wrongness of forbidding these women to carry children, you are looking thru an entirely different looking glass.

Like mentally retarded people. Tell me, Harry, how does procreation become a right for these?

How is procreation sacred to every living being?

How about the repeat child abusers, the women who live with their boyfriends and have their children tortured and beaten to death because "I was afraid I'd lose him if I told him to stop" They are allowed "freedom of procreation?"

When do you start thinking of the innocents here, and stop trying to insist everyone has the same rights?

And, what about that mother who popped out several children just to turn around and murder them and bury them in the yard .... is she just supposed to keep getting pregnant and offing them?? Do I think she should have been sterilized? Yes, I do. I can not imagine that she still has a "right" to breed.

I really must look up that case again ... it was so deliciously evil of her. I'm wondering if anyone made it into a book. I do so love true crime.

Lets see .... ok, so it's wrong to sterilize her, even though she only seems to murder her own children. So, it's more "humane" to lock her up for the rest of her life, either in prison or in a mental institution, and pray that no paroles her while she's still fertille, or to put her to death?? Gee, what fun.

Oooooo, reading about another case like that one, but in Australia.. The quote from that case is just too good: "When asked if it would be possible to rehabilitate her, he said, "The idea of her being released while still of child-bearing age is one that doesn't inspire much confidence."

Wow .... but of course .... you must release her, she has a "right" to breed.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Like mentally retarded people. Tell me, Harry, how does procreation become a right for these?

The same way it did for everyone.
Even if you were to start from this perspective, the next question would be "Ok, so people with an IQ below 70 aren't allowed to breed, but people with an IQ of 75 aren't that much brighter," and 80 after that. You need to realize that while some forms of retardation are heritable, but others are not. The latter could very well produce "viable" offspring, even though they might be more heavily retarded than mild cases of DS patients. So where do you draw the line, and based on what? Behavior? Heritability?

Or "sorry, but black people are statistically too likely to become addicts, and we can't have situations where crack addicts become pregnant, so we're going to preemptively sterilize them." Unless you want to give them mandatory abortions as soon as you find out they're pregnant, which would likely "offend" the Christians, so it's probably more politically viable to sterilize them and be done with it.

Once the precedent would be there, the argument that the practice was absolutely indefensible would be gone, and it would just get expanded upon, as there would be no real reason to stop it: the criteria for sterilization are too vaguely defined, and the cutoff points/"requirements" too arbitrarily chosen to be able to say with certainty that "creating this rule is rational whereas creating that one is not".
Which is why they banned the practice in the USA in the 70s, and which is why it's in the Rome statutes, and the declaration of the rights of man.

[desertgrandma]

Way to spin the argument, Zerospinboson.

What if a frog had wings? He wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped!

So lets not do anything to stop the ongoing abuse now, because it MIGHT cause someone to try and take advantage of it in the future, and we as a society are to ignorant to keep that from happening.

Lets not say "no, you cannot take care of yourself, so how can you take care of a child?" Thats where I would draw the line.

That would be too sensible, I guess. But God forbid sense enters into this argument.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

The same way it did for everyone.
Even if you were to start from this perspective, the next question would be "Ok, so people with an IQ below 70 aren't allowed to breed, but people with an IQ of 75 aren't that much brighter," and 80 after that. You need to realize that while some forms of retardation are heritable, but others are not. The latter could very well produce "viable" offspring, even though they might be more heavily retarded than mild cases of DS patients. So where do you draw the line, and based on what? Behavior? Heritability?

Or "sorry, but black people are statistically too likely to become addicts, and we can't have situations where crack addicts become pregnant, so we're going to preemptively sterilize them." Unless you want to give them mandatory abortions as soon as you find out they're pregnant, which would likely "offend" the Christians, so it's probably more politically viable to sterilize them and be done with it.

Once the precedent would be there, the argument that the practice was absolutely indefensible would be gone, and it would just get expanded upon, as there would be no real reason to stop it: the criteria for sterilization are too vaguely defined, and the cutoff points/"requirements" too arbitrarily chosen to be able to say with certainty that "creating this rule is rational whereas creating that one is not".
Which is why they banned the practice in the USA in the 70s, and which is why it's in the Rome statutes, and the declaration of the rights of man.

You are kidding ... you have to be kidding. We're talking about people who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they should not be allowed to produce children, because they are already addicted, or because they murder every child they produce, or they cannot even take care of themselves .... and you are trying to turn that into forced sterilization of everyone who is from a certain ethnic group or has a particular IQ??

By that logic, you can''t put a man into prison because he killed another person because (gasp) even though he did it .... you'd have to imprison everyone from his ethnic group if you imprisoned him.

You just can't make that connection. Although, kudos for trying.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, what about that mother who popped out several children just to turn around and murder them and bury them in the yard .... is she just supposed to keep getting pregnant and offing them?? Do I think she should have been sterilized? Yes, I do. I can not imagine that she still has a "right" to breed.

WTF is this fascination with sterilizing an 8-fold murderer (if indeed she did exist)?
How the hell would she still be free after the first one or two if it indeed was known that she killed them?
It's entirely beyond believable to assume that she would still be free to go wherever she wants, if indeed she had already been caught and convicted for killing one (or more) of her children. And if she hadn't, how would you have known to sterilize her if you couldn't even catch her to convict her for infanticide?
This example is utterly implausible, and useless as a test case; existing laws are more than capable of dealing with her crimes. There is no need for a "eugenics law".

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

You are kidding ... you have to be kidding. We're talking about people who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they should not be allowed to produce children, because they are already addicted, or because they murder every child they produce [See above], or they cannot even take care of themselves .... and you are trying to turn that into forced sterilization of everyone who is from a certain ethnic group or has a particular IQ??

By that logic, you can''t put a man into prison because he killed another person because (gasp) even though he did it .... you'd have to imprison everyone from his ethnic group if you imprisoned him.

You just can't make that connection. Although, kudos for trying.

I can. Been there, done that, Suggest you take your own advice earlier offered to Harry and read up. Unless you really believe that you'll do better this time around.

[slayda]

An interesting title. I suppose there is also a declaration of the rights of woman.

But more to the point, I grant you the privilege (not right) to breed & overbreed. Along with it comes the responsibility to care for your offspring. I retain the right to not have to support you and your children. And don't even think of asking me to give up some of my rightful space just because you have overcrowded your own. It ain't gonna happen. Of course you might breed up an army and try to take it.

I have one child. That's how many I thought I could properly support. You choose your own number and you support them.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

WTF is this fascination with sterilizing an 8-fold murderer (if she indeed did kill her own kids)?
How the hell would she still be free after the first one or two if it indeed was known that she killed them?
It's entirely beyond believable to assume that she would still be free to go wherever she wants, if indeed she had already been caught and convicted for killing one (or more) of her children. And if she hadn't, how would you have known to sterilize her if you couldn't even catch her to convict her for infanticide?
This example is utterly implausible, and useless as a test case; furthermore, currently existing laws would be more than adequate to deal with her.



I can. Been there, done that, Suggest you take your own advice earlier offered to Harry and read up.

Please. Where in the world do you live.

Here, alone, in Arizona, every freakin summer people leave helpless infants alone in a car to slowly fry to death. the penalty? A slap on the wrist and much sympathy for the parents because "They've been thru so much already". "It could happen to anyone"

The same for those who don't watch their kids around pools. Every freakin year, deaths because little ones get out there and yet no one is serving a sentence because "its a horrible tragedy which could happen to anyone and they've been thru so much already"

Susan Smith. Name ring a bell? Strapped her babies into car seats and let it sink into a lake. Eligible for parole in 2024. Thats justice.

Andrea Yates. Drowned her 5 children, even tho some tried to escape, calmly then called the cops. Is now in a low security state mental institiution. In Kerrville Texas. Because God forbid anyone should really punish her for something beyond her control. She's been thru so much already.


These women and many more like them, (by the way, fyi, they're white) have the right to procreate?

I"m sure, where ever you live, there are similar cases. Refusing to accept that some women just do not have the right to breed is blind and dangerous. Especially if you are one of their children.

Thats MY f'n fascination with sterilizing some women.

[Xenophon]

Arguments about forced sterilization??? EEEEEEEK!!!! Be afraid, be very afraid

(But that won't stop me from weighing in!)

It seems to me that zerospinboson, rickymaveety, and desertgrandma have all raised excellent points.

ZSB is absolutely right that we (the US) banned compulsory sterilization exactly because it was seriously misused in far far too many cases. (But I take some issue with your particular argument style back in post 182. You'd have done much better to follow your first paragraph with "The US banned the practice in the 70s exactly because it got out of hand and was being seriously misused." plus the reference. And left it at that.)

Ricky and DG each gave real examples of people who, well, let's charitably say "really shouldn't have had children." (Yes, I know that's a massive understatement!) And those people are, in fact, a real problem too.

It might help if ZSB were to respectfully consider that the problems Ricky and DG point out are real -- and that (for whatever reason) existing law is not being deployed to address them. Useful suggestions on fixing that combination would go over far better than overheated argument.

Ricky and DG -- If you haven't read about our countries shameful history with forced sterilization, you really should. Warning: prepare to be disgusted by our government's behavior. We had to study it to pass the IRB tests for being allowed to design experiments that might (even peripherally) involve human subjects, and believe me it ain't pretty.

Digression: For those outside the Ivory Tower, the IRB is the Internal Review Board at each academic institution that is charged with ensuring that any experiments we perform DO NOT cause the sorts of messes created by the eugenics folks, or the perpetrators of the Tuskeegee experiment (another one to be disgusted by!), and plenty of others both within and outside the US. Most academics think that IRBs go way overboard with restrictions on experimental practice -- and I mostly agree. But better that than going wrong in the ways I mentioned above.

I had to do the whole IRB thing in order to certify that my research (which included field trials of software analysis tools) did not constitute "experimentation involving humans." Before the IRB training, I thought it trivially obvious that this was the case. After the IRB training, I could honestly certify "no human experimentation" -- but I was aware of dozens of ways my pre-training opinion might easily have been wrong. Or to put it another way: My intuition turned out to be correct, but it certainly wasn't trivially obvious and I had been quite naive to think so.

Wearing my "I mostly don't trust da gummint" hat, I find myself in rare agreement with ZSB -- another law is probably the last thing we need here.

But before DG and Ricky explode, I must add that the examples they give are real... and we do need a solution. And I have no clue what that solution should be. My personal bias is that we as a society lack consistency on the concept of personal responsibility. We preach it for things like education (as indeed I just did in this thread), and then fail to apply it to people like the ones in DG and Ricky's examples.

Maybe taking personal responsibility more seriously and consistently might help us to fix some of these things. Or maybe not. And don't ask me how to get something as large as "society" to change in that direction. I have even less clue on that front!

Xenophon

[desertgrandma]

I am well aware of my country's history, both good and bad.

The misuse of power seems to be common among all governments, no matter where you live.

That being said, I stand by my statements.

People seem to constantly confuse the "God given ability to.." with the "God given right to....."

Until enough people have enough guts to look around and say "Enough. We will not tolerate the abuse of the innocent this way. We will not tolerate excuses, we will protect our children, elderly, and weak." the cycle will continue.

If we can't do that by the simple act of making sure our own children are fed by the time they leave the house, we certainly will never do that for others.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I am well aware of my country's history, both good and bad.

The misuse of power seems to be common among all governments, no matter where you live.

Good for you on the awareness front! I wasn't assuming that you -- or you and Ricky in particular didn't know -- ( thus the "If you're not aware..."). Rather I was being cognizant that waaaay too many people don't know. As for misuse of power, it seems to be a sad truth. All of the very largest screw-ups seem to me to have been enabled by misuse of government power -- perhaps because no other entities are powerful enough to screw up that badly.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

That being said, I stand by my statements.

People seem to constantly confuse the "God given ability to.." with the "God given right to....."

Until enough people have enough guts to look around and say "Enough. We will not tolerate the abuse of the innocent this way. We will not tolerate excuses, we will protect our children, elderly, and weak." the cycle will continue.

If we can't do that by the simple act of making sure our own children are fed by the time they leave the house, we certainly will never do that for others.

The paragraph I bold-faced above embodies my preferred way to begin solving the problem. I still think it's important to explain clearly why a particular solution won't lead to the bad places we've been in the past.

Xenophon

[slayda]

Is it not also a misuse of power for people to breed (and I use that word on purpose) more than they can care for and expect (no they demand) that the Government step in and care for their children? In order for that Government to care for those children, they must have funds. Their only avenue for funds is to tax the people (i.e. me and you). Therefore the Government is misusing their power to steal my money to pay for those parents who act irresponsibly.

Please tell me how this is any less a misuse of power.

It also seems to me, just as we imprison or fine people for wrong doing, there could be other punishments. In the past, and still in some countries, public humiliation (e.g. confining people in public stocks) and caning have been used. Today many people consider this to be "cruel & unusual". I contend that for something to be a punishment it must be something that causes pain of some sort, either physical of emotional, and something out of the ordinary. Therefore for something to be "punishment" it must be cruel and unusual. Is it not cruel to imprison a person? Is it not unusual to be forces to pay a fine?

[Xenophon]

Some of the problems with forced sterilization in the past have included:

• Irreversable methods. Can't undo improper sterilizations if this is the case.
• Massively biased application of the process to "unpopular" groups of people.
• Sterilization of people because of membership in a group rather than because that individual specifically showed reason to expect a problem.
• Assorted other miscarriages of justice. A number of retrospective reviews of all cases [that were turned up by investigation] showed that the vast majority of forced sterilizations were performed in violation even of the official rules for the process. And the official rules were bad enough.

I'll stop there, partly because the degree to which we botched this in the past turns my stomach, and partly because my memory is failing me w.r.t. further examples. Suffice it to say that the list of things done wrong in our real past history of this practice is truly daunting.

Now: If you propose an approach that stands a good chance of avoiding all those issues -- especially the "slippery slope" problem -- I'm all ears. Because the problems the Ricky and DG and others have pointed at are real and substantial too. Some possibilities might include reversible techniques (?perhaps implantable birth-control?), application only via court-order (and due process) and only after a specific individual has clearly demonstrated incapacity-as-a-parent (but why don't existing laws fix this?), or ???

Really, if you have ideas I'd like to hear them.

But based on our past history, I'm inclined to be extremely dubious of calls for forced sterilization -- so it'll take quite a strong presentation to change my mind.

Xenophon

[Sparrow]

How about giving everyone the right to get a license to have children - once they have proven they have the necessary skills? (Like a driving license.)

Make it an offence to have children without a licence - require the parent/s to pass the test asap, or put the child out for adoption if they don't/won't (and sterilise as a last resort).

Just a thought, I have no parental instincts so I have no idea what effect this idea would have on those who do.

[krisk]

I'm late to the conversation, but an armed society is a polite society.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Some of the problems with forced sterilization in the past have included:

• Irreversable methods. Can't undo improper sterilizations if this is the case.
• Massively biased application of the process to "unpopular" groups of people.
• Sterilization of people because of membership in a group rather than because that individual specifically showed reason to expect a problem.
• Assorted other miscarriages of justice. A number of retrospective reviews of all cases [that were turned up by investigation] showed that the vast majority of forced sterilizations were performed in violation even of the official rules for the process. And the official rules were bad enough.

I'll stop there, partly because the degree to which we botched this in the past turns my stomach, and partly because my memory is failing me w.r.t. further examples. Suffice it to say that the list of things done wrong in our real past history of this practice is truly daunting.

Now: If you propose an approach that stands a good chance of avoiding all those issues -- especially the "slippery slope" problem -- I'm all ears. Because the problems the Ricky and DG and others have pointed at are real and substantial too. Some possibilities might include reversible techniques (?perhaps implantable birth-control?), application only via court-order (and due process) and only after a specific individual has clearly demonstrated incapacity-as-a-parent (but why don't existing laws fix this?), or ???

Really, if you have ideas I'd like to hear them.

But based on our past history, I'm inclined to be extremely dubious of calls for forced sterilization -- so it'll take quite a strong presentation to change my mind.

Xenophon

Today we have a legal system that puts "individuals" on trial for specific offenses. If convicted by the jury, the judge has certain leeway as to punishment. Why not use the same system for those individual cases that were brought up with appropriate punishments added to cover these circumstances. We have apparently avoided the "slipper slpoe" for murder trials. No group is convicted of murder simply by belonging to that group. It seems to me that the legal system works with only minor or occasional miscarriages of justice.