Sterilisation

[Tony Rabbit]

This thread, deliberately posted in the (Serious Discussion) Drawing Room, was prompted by this BBC news item 14/06/2011.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13700490 (Read while the item is still open).

In a 1927 US Supreme Court decision that upheld the laws, storied jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

Whatever your views can we discuss a response?

This was the pratice in many American States from 1907 to 1979.

Sir Winston Churchill once called for forced sterilisation of "the feeble-minded and insane classes".

While eugenic sterilisation never became official policy in the UK - in part due to opposition from the Catholic church - Finland, Norway, and Sweden adopted the sterilisation laws in the 1930s.

[Huguenot]

Erm. So it doesn't exist any more, and nothing is happening?

I saw a TV program about the Incas. Bastards. Please discuss.

[Huguenot]

Can I add, thank jehosophat for the catholics? Without them, we'd have been absolutely lost.

Hug a Hoodie, Cuddle a Catholic.

[StraferJack]

Stevet

That is all

[Tony Rabbit]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Erm. So it doesn't exist any more, and nothing is

> happening?

>

Erm. Cannot next of kin or any authority having care, control, custody of an individual, who are 'considered' not able to make a decision on their own behalf, give consent for medical 'treatment'?

Also does not that consent extend to the permission to administer drugs to control dangerous behaviour ie treatment to suppress sexual desire and violence?

Can that be considered now to be a more politically correct way of performing sterilisation?

[Loz]

Hardly examples of eugenics. Seems you are trying to whip up a debate where there is none.

[Drxyster]

Perhaps some of the past and future posters on this subject may wish to comment on the following.

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who

were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had

syphilis, would you recommend that she was sterilised or had an abortion?

if you recommend sterilisation or abortion Ludwig van Beethoven would never have been born.

[Loz]

Drxyster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> would you recommend that she was

> sterilised or had an abortion?

What does my recommendation have to do with it? I thought this was about forced sterilisation and eugenics?

[DJKillaQueen]

But we do abort fetuses because they have genetic disorders. Downs Syndrome is the most obvious example. In that context it is a relevant debate. Eugenics as a theory has been replaced by genetics. Genetics may well be devoid of the obvious descrimination and prejudice of Eugenics but it still concerns itself with moral questions of whether someone's right to live should be determined by the quality of the life they are likely to live.

[TE44]

Barbara Harris is part of Project Prevention, she has been paying drug addict in America to agree to be sterilized.

Last year Alan Mitchell, a british citizen also a drug addict, was paid to have a vasectomy.

PP has come to the UK, (link)

There has been conflicting info from this website and from Barbara Harris.

It may not be compulsary but I believe it is a step in that direction.

http://www.projectprevention.org/united-kingdom/

[Loz]

From the website...

"Project Prevention UK will not be paying for sterilization procedures. The BMA just makes that too difficult."

Sounds like we have the right safeguards in place.

[TE44]

Its the "until further notice" that worries me.

[Tony Rabbit]

"We will only be paying addicts and alcoholics to use long term birth control until further notice. We thank all of our UK donors for their financial support -"

The tip of the wedge has already been inserted and is prising open the box of public support.

Voluntary financial support (donors) sufficient to support this active organisation appear to be generous.

Surgical, radiation, drugs, the only narrow division between the treatments is that some are irreversible.

They still amount to sterilisation.

If the 'patients' are being paid to accept the 'treatments' is that voluntary or enforcement or ?

Where is our moral ground.

I am feeling local support for compulsory controls. If that is the case let us agree, send our donations, and find another topic.

[Loz]

There are many things to worry about in this world. A bunch of quasi-religious loonies is a long way from the top of the list. Personally, I think most druggies would take their money and take their tablets. Then sell the tablets.

http://riekelt.com/barbrady.png

[Huguenot]

'But we do abort fetuses because they have genetic disorders'.

Apart from the spelling error, no 'we' don't. 'we' don't have a say in the matter at all. The only thing 'we' do is believe in parliamentary democracy and currently the woman's right to her own choices. Long may that continue.

There are undoubtedly wierdos and Americans who will fund this kind of project, I'm surprised that anyone should think that offers it any kind of validity.

[DJKillaQueen]

I would argue though that the fact that we allow anyone to abort a fetus is in essence the same thing. It is the decision by another to terminate a potential life because they either don't what an impingement on their own or argue from the quality of life perspective (I have no views either way on the morality of abortion btw). And offering people money to be sterilised (wherever in the world that is) is also in essence a act born out of the view of one over another's suitability to parent. Of course, neither of those things are compulsary, but we still have the legality to make decisions or help others to make decisions that are simply one persons view of another, when it is never possible to really know just how a unborn person's life will turn out to be.

*and what spelling error? fetus (plural fetuses) is one correct spelling along with foetus, f?tus, faetus, or f?tus*

[Huguenot]

I don't think it's worthwhile making observations about what happens elsewhere in the world and using the pronoun 'we'.

As for whether allowing something is the same as doing it... Well.... We're all 'allowed' to have sex, but I seem to be somewhat unmoved by other people's experience when I'm cleaning the kitchen.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's a huge difference between having sex and terminating a fetus because it has Downs Syndrome H. That's not really a good counterargument.

Nor too is relying on semantics when devoid of anything to counter argue with. 'We' clearly in my post refers to us as we the human race. It is perfectly valid to refer to some of the morally questionable things some humans do as a collective 'we'.

There are countries that execute people for little reason and of course we as a nation can disassotiate ourselves from that because we as a nation don't carry out such thngs, but we as human beings cannot disassociate ourselves from that. We have just as many murderers and psychopaths as any nation for example. We just don't give them jobs in positions of power where they can legally practise their sadism.

And similarly we feel free to discuss things happening in the rest of the world in other threads. Don't see anyone saying discussion on genocide in another country isn't worth having because genocide isn't happening in this country.

Of course I don't think anyone in their right mind on this forum would argue for the merits of forced sterilisation, so perhaps the debate is dead in the water from the start.....but that as far as I can see is the only reason the debate is a dead one.

[silverfox]

Drxyster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>... If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8

> kids already, three who

> were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally

> retarded, and she had

> syphilis, would you recommend that she was

> sterilised or had an abortion?

>

>

> if you recommend sterilisation or abortion Ludwig

> van Beethoven would never have been born.

Surely this is the crux of the dilemma - 'would you recommend...'?

What right does anyone have to pass judgement on another?

I pay for her/his (insert whinge) through my taxes therefore she/he cannot do x, y, z

Dangerous road to go down folks

[silverfox]

Re: Sterilisation Posted by: Huguenot Yesterday, 05:16AM

'But we do abort fetuses because they have genetic disorders'.

Apart from the spelling error, no 'we' don't. 'we' don't have a say in the matter at all.

WRONG - spelling perfectly acceptable as American English and naive to deny the obvious - wrong thread to discuss this though

[Chick]

We have just as many murderers and psychopaths as any nation for example. We just don't give them jobs in positions of power where they can legally practise their sadism.

What about our leaders who kept up twelve years of murderous sanctions against Iraq, followed by invasion; Afghanistan and now Libya?

Sorry, off topic.

[Bicep_Builder]

Drxyster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps some of the past and future posters on

> this subject may wish to comment on the

> following.

>

>

> If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8

> kids already, three who

> were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally

> retarded, and she had

> syphilis, would you recommend that she was

> sterilised or had an abortion?

>

>

> if you recommend sterilisation or abortion Ludwig

> van Beethoven would never have been born.

Oh god not that 'beethoven' bollocks again.