Tyrosine: apeiron242: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Felons, addicts, people on welfare, etc... should all be sterilized.

Sorta this, but not quite so evil.

SOME problems of like this can be overcome, some not.

Offering free birth control and proceedures would go a long way to saving money and society in the long run. The danger is that it is... eugenics. As long as those issues are more brown than white... we'd be carrying out Hilteriffic eugenics.

I work in Non-Profit Housing (Ontario, Canada). The vast majority of "lifers" in the social system I deal with every day are white and have substance abuse issues. Immigrants tend to get use the social system as a crutch until they are established and then they get out and lead productive lives. Your experience may vary depending on the diversity of your community.

Making it fully voluntary and subsidize, yes. Mandating would be cruel and unusual.

And what about the kids they bring into this world? I seriously doubt you have any idea how many drug addicts live. We evicted a user from an apartment last week: needles everywhere, broken glass from crack pipes, used condoms from the hookers who were turning tricks in his bedroom (he was pimping at least one girl), weapons including an illegal 9mm handgun, ~$5000 damage to the unit, and filth words cannot describe. His two kids, both under 10, visited him there at least one night a week.

It easy to take the moral high road when you don't have to deal the broken lives, the kids growing up without any hope for the future, and the normalization of aberrant behavior. Go live with these people for a month and then tell me how everyone, including hard-core drug addicts, have a right to self determination.

Yes, and you should be the judge of who has the right to self determination, correct? Or is there someone even more elite than you, that should be judging whether YOU deserve the right to self determination?

Aarontology

And this my friends, is the exact sort of attitude that prevents us from having rational policies when it comes to crime.

"Either agree with me, or you hate the victims and want to see more"


Yes, because I'm being really irrational with my posts. Just frothing at the mouth when I make these posts.

So, a twice convicted child rapist should be allowed to have children, right? A mother who allowed her first baby to die of starvation/neglect while she smoked rocks is perfectly fit to have another, right? Hey, maybe she learned her lesson when Little Michelle died in her own filth! Perhaps that child rapist doesn't like raping babies anymore. People change their sexual orientation all the time, right?

I suppose there is another way. Life imprisonment without parole. Frankly, it's another form of birth control, but much more invasive, don't you think? Still, I suppose I'm more for that then sterilization, but I'll settle for either.

Tyrosine: Go live with these people for a month and then tell me how everyone, including hard-core drug addicts, have a right to self determination.

They don't.
They've already proven that.
In fact, they have really given a great case fo INvoluntary sterilization.

Spay and Neuter your junkies before they become monster parents.

It's for the children.
It's also for my wallet.
The one childrens services taps, because I'm a responsible memeber of society and never had any farking crotchlings.

I have no progeny begging for help, insisting they are entitled to jack squat.

And any mother's child who wants MY hard earned money should be able to pay me back when I'm old and not earning any more.

Having said that, yes, I'm 100% for getting these model citizen on the road to a new life and that should be a life with zero satisfaction that their precious farking DNA was worth preserving.
It's not.
they are not endangered as a specie, and are a blight upon us and a drain on our resources.
Send them to frikkin ethiopia.
/wait, send the fatties there.
/send the junkies to detroit.

FarkinHostile: Heysomefarkingpenguinatemysammich!

I didn't know this many farkers were in favor of eugenics.

Negative or Positive?

Would you have a baby with a person with a horrible genetic disease? No? Then you advocate Eugenics. Negative eugenics.

Would you want to have a baby with a person with great intelligence, health, and beauty? Yes? Then you advocate Eugenics. Positive eugenics.

Most of you follow eugenics, and don't even know it.

Most people who scream "Eugenics is EVIL!!" don't even understand what it is. All they know is that the Nazis were big fans, therefore it must be the debil. Problem is the Nazis twisted it and corrupted it to suit their own ideas, namely the destruction of Jews.

Eugenics are not evil. What has been done in its name was evil.


You know who else wanted to sterilize the unfitundesirables?

Anyone with half a brain?

BTW, this topic is NOT about eugenics. Not one tiny bit.

This.

Cyprus enacted a highly successful Eugenics program not that long ago to nearly eliminate a rare, but expensive disease that was threatening to crash their budget simply by requiring genetic testing prior to marriage to know if you were a carrier, and offering pre-natal testing and free abortions for those who opted to end such pregnancies (which was entirely voluntary).

Hell we do it in America, though it isn't government funded, via all sorts of in-utero testings that are available. How many people find out they are carrying a highly diseased/malformed fetus and opt to abort? Every single one of them has participated in Eugenics.

On the one hand, these kinds of things are a little spooky to think of in a baby steps toward eugenics kinda way. On the other hand, I'm sick of druggies poppin out babies they don't/can't/won't care for and who often have special needs, end up in foster care and have lifelong health issues to boot. There are other problems that concern me more than worrying about this program teetering over a slippery slope. Snip away, my friends.

Rest assured, altinos has no doubt contributed to the advancement of human knowledge far more than this poor, wretched drug addict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s

We really should make sure we don't have any more degraded slobs like him pooh-pooing our hotdish potlucks.

skullkrusher: FlashHarry: like voluntarily eating peanuts and going into anaphylactic shock?

no, like taking drugs or drinking.

FlashHarry: addiction is essentially like an allergy. some people can do drugs or drink alcohol and not become addicted. some become addicted straight away. others become addicted over time.

except allergies do not give you the incredible urge to partake in the allergen.

...not so much. I know we are talking drugs and addiction, but I know several people who are lactose intolerant or flat-out allergic to all dairy products, who crave them like nothing else. In many cases, allergic reactions to food manifest themselves in intense cravings for that food.

skullkrusher: FlashHarry: like voluntarily eating peanuts and going into anaphylactic shock?

no, like taking drugs or drinking.

FlashHarry: addiction is essentially like an allergy. some people can do drugs or drink alcohol and not become addicted. some become addicted straight away. others become addicted over time.

except allergies do not give you the incredible urge to partake in the allergen.

THESE FLOWERS ARE &$%#^#() AWESOME! I NEED MORE OF THIS #$@!!

Tommy Moo: In any case, people with genetic conditions are just as likely to turn out to be serial killers as geniuses.

[citation needed]

mrsirjojo: There are many here who are being intellectually dishonest with their definition of voluntary.

Wha?

"Here is money to be sterilized"

"Cool. Let's do this thing"

Sure, they care more about the cash than their ability to reproduce in the future. That doesn't mean it isn't voluntary.

The government controls the drug traffic in this country anyway, why not combine the problem drugs with birth control? Ya know, put it in the Coke, the Meth, the Heroin what-ever. It's a win-win: keep the South American drug cartels happy without creating an extra drain on the welfare system.

If this is wrong, then handing condoms to the poor is also wrong.

Talon

Hell we do it in America, though it isn't government funded, via all sorts of in-utero testings that are available. How many people find out they are carrying a highly diseased/malformed fetus and opt to abort? Every single one of them has participated in Eugenics.


Incest laws are based on Eugenics.

Anyone got a problem with not being able to marry your sister? (southern state farkers need not answer :)

I'm surprised so many people are upset by this. To me, freedom means you are free to screw up your own live all you like. I don't think this should extend to the lives of your children, who have their own rights.

If $300 is worth you never having kids then you would probably make a really awful parent. Everybody wins.

FlashHarry: JesseL: This is wrong because they might later choose overcome their addictions and want to choose to become parents?

can you not choose to be treated for epilepsy or diabetes?

I'm sure you can. I'm also sure that if you're capable of deciding to get treatment for drug addiction, you're capable of choosing (or not choosing) to be sterilized.

The argument seems to be that drug addicts fundamentally lack free will. If that were true (and I don't believe it is), what makes them anything but animals? I'm perfectly happy with shooting rabid dogs or bears that can't stay away from pic-a-nic baskets; so why should I get butthurt about sterilized junkies?

It seems to me like you have a fundamental conflict in your argument.

Just lace all alcohol with RU-486. Legalize drugs and do the same.

uncletogie: Tommy Moo: In any case, people with genetic conditions are just as likely to turn out to be serial killers as geniuses.

[citation needed]

Yes. There is clearly a causal link between being born with a genetic condition and turning into a good person when you grown up.

I don't need citations for things that are preeminently evident. Having Down Syndrome doesn't make you smart. I'm not going to look up stats. It's painfully obvious.

"Citation needed" is often used as a wrench in the cogs to just waste time by frustrating someone with an obviously correct argument into making trivial trips around Wikipedia in hopes that they will give up and "lose points" in the debate.

I have a friend who's talking about getting a vasectomy because him and his wife just had their 3rd. I'll inform him of this discount method.

Talon: Every single one of them has participated in Eugenics.

And many people find even that sort of voluntary eugenics immoral.

hitlersbrain: If $300 is worth you never having kids then you would probably make a really awful parent. Everybody wins.

And I'm going to have to ask again. WHERE IS MY MONEY?

I know I would be an awful parent but if I don't get my money when I want it I'm going to impregnate someone.

Anyone confined to prison for a sentence over 10 years should have this done as well. Mandatory for aggravated child molestation, distribution of child pornography, and for liking Twilight.

Aarontology

You'll notice I didn't necessarily disagree with your idea. I took issue with the way you framed it. Someone can be against forcible sterilization without wanting to create more victims.

Ok, I can see that. Poor wording on my part. My bad. Still, it's pretty easy to understand the likely consequences of a truly unfit, not undesirable, but UNFIT person having children. This topic is all about preventing that without having to get too totalitarian (although it is inevitable, IMNSHO.)


I'd rather life imprisonment since it completely removes the risk of someone who was convicted of a crime, rather than hoping that the sterilization somehow removes whatever it is that makes them commit such horrible crimes.

Yeah, I suppose sentencing reform is just as important a topic to prevent the unfit from having children.

FarkinHostile: So, a twice convicted child rapist should be allowed to have children, right? A mother who allowed her first baby to die of starvation/neglect while she smoked rocks is perfectly fit to have another, right?

Either of these would be declared an unfit parent, lose custody of any new children promptly, and in the case of the child rapist, be denied contact with any children whatsoever.

altinos: AbbeySomeone: Not really.
I've met many people like you and generally avoid them.
I've known addicts too, and wouldn't let them in my house, but some people are born with addictive propensities.
You generally avoid people who make sensible choices about drugs and alcohol? Whatever floats your boat.

Not a choice, dumbass. I guess you just illustrated her point perfectly. You don't get it, but you know you're superior anyway. Huh.

We should let you be in charge of all the sterilizations, I guess. Since you know everything.

Where the fark is the Hero tag?

FlashHarry: JesseL: I'm sure you can. I'm also sure that if you're capable of deciding to get treatment for drug addiction, you're capable of choosing (or not choosing) to be sterilized.

most addicts who seek treatment (rather than being committed) do so in moments of clarity. that's the nature of the disease. if those "volunteering" to be sterilized are likewise doing so sober, then i would be fine with that.

Well all right then. I didn't exactly get the impression that the charity in TFA was running (or advocating) a clinic where you would stumble in, get snipped, and stumble out with $300.

XZaapryca: Where the fark is the Hero tag?

Masturbating to Stormfront?

JesseL: So let me get this straight:

1. Addiction is a disease that prevents people from making rational choices.

Given that addiction usually begins with a choice (the exception being prescriptions or forced drug use--which, yes, happens), I have little sympathy in regards to choices made while addicted.

3. This is wrong because they might later choose overcome their addictions and want to choose to become parents?

With the exceptions made above, I have little if any confidence in people getting clean and truly staying clean. They've already proven they are incapable of good judgment, and as far as I'm concerned they are unfit for parenthood for life.

captain_heroic44

Either of these would be declared an unfit parent, lose custody of any new children promptly, and in the case of the child rapist, be denied contact with any children whatsoever.


Citation needed.

(Sorry, Tommy Moo ;))

I've never heard of such a thing. From my knowledge, it takes an act of god to be declared unfit and lose custody, mind being forbidden from having contact with your own children. Got any examples?

kbronsito: FlashHarry: actually, i've rethought it. i'm in favor of mandatory sterilization for all republicans.

wrong. the liberal agenda is to turn them all gay. then most of them won't have children anyways. there may be some adoptions or invitro... but the gaying of republicans should keep their numbers low.

Curses! You've discovered our secret plan to make Republicans gay by providing public men's rooms in airports!

Sterilizations Panels!

Ponzholio: Giving handjobs in the alley for an 8-ball...

Before or after the sterilization?

kbronsito: Tommy Moo: punkhippie: Tommy Moo: Heysomefarkingpenguinatemysammich!: I didn't know this many farkers were in favor of eugenics.
/You know who else wanted to sterilize undesirables?



You still haven't addressed the fact that eugenics works. It is good. It makes fewer liabilities for our health care and social support systems. It makes more geniuses. It makes us prettier, stronger, less depressed, more wealthy, more productive, and all around generally happier. Anything we can do to voluntarily direct society in such a direction is a good thing. You harp about the immorality of eugenics, but you are like the person who proverbially stands by the tracks and refuses to throw the switch that will send the train onto the other platform, killing more people with your inaction. If we do not encourage certain people not to have children, there will be more human suffering in the world than what will be caused by the discouragement itself.

Who choses with characteristics are desireable and which are not. Because sickle cell anemia is kind of a disease. But then, global warming hits and the warmer temperatures extend the range and populations of the anopholes mosquito and then we may want the natural protection that sickle cell anemia provides in the gene pool. Do we keep sickle cell or do we not?

THIS.

Many of the "breed a better human" types need to brush up on their biology classes, especially in the part about natural selection. There's no guarantee that the conditions of tomorrow will be like the conditions of today (what you already said). A review of the dangers of inbreeding would also be beneficial.

Also, the complaints that the stupid are outbreeding the smart ignore a major factor - that the smart people are discouraged from breeding by their own social structures. If you're stupid, you get a job right after high school and start a family. If you're smart, you go to college, (and maybe post-graduate work) then build up your career, and THEN start a family (you were too busy before). By this time your most fertile period has already passed, with women having approximately a decade to push out the 2.1 kids just to meet replacement levels. There's also the exacerbating factor that the women who leave high-powered careers to have children suffer severe drops in social status (You'd think that at least the biology majors would be cheering her on!)