Should addicts be sterilized?

[Snipe]

Should addicts be sterilized? (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/should_addicts_be_sterilized_salpart/singleton/)
Project Prevention has long paid poor, addicted women not to procreate.
By Jed Bickman, The Fix
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 08:00 AM EDT

http://media.salon.com/2012/05/RVBabySide.gif


“Don’t let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit,” the slogan on the fliers reads. Another says, “She has her daddy’s eyes…and her mommy’s heroin addiction.” Then: “Get birth control, get ca$h.” These are posters that show up nationwide in homeless shelters and methadone clinics, in AA and NA meeting rooms and near needle exchange programs, distributed by volunteers for Project Prevention. Formerly called Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK), the controversial nonprofit pays drug addicts $300 to either undergo sterilization or use a form of long-term, “no responsibility needed” birth control.

“What makes a woman’s right to procreate more important than the right of a child to have a normal life?” Project Prevention founder Barbara Harris told Time magazine in 2010. The question is entirely rhetorical: her self-professed mission in life is to zero out the number of births to parents who abuse illegal drugs, particularly crack cocaine. “Even if these babies are fortunate enough not to have mental or physical disabilities, they’re placed in the foster-care system and moved from home to home,” she says.

This woman and her foundation pay people to sterilize themselves. Is that a good thing?


“We don’t allow dogs to breed. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children,” Barbara Harris says.

Does anyone want litters of children from drug addicts? Do you want one? Take two, they are small. I heard they are delicious, but the main thing is how you baste them and what sauce you use. Some people marinate them, but your mileage may vary. (A modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html))



Though based in North Carolina, Project Prevention mainly targets the nation’s major cities, especially poor and minority communities —“drug areas,” in Harris’s words. In addition to posting fliers, volunteers do ride-alongs with police; a mobile billboard (see the photo on The Fix homepage) tours the country.

Harris originally offered addicts $300 for sterilization and only $200 for contraception, but the ensuing bad press—mainly charges that the program was incentivizing addicted women to choose an irreversible decision about reproduction—put an end to that practice. In fact, the vast majority of the birth-control procedures come on the government’s dime, via Medicaid. After the procedures, the women send the medical paperwork and a “paper trail” that proves that they are addicts—“usually arrest records”—to Project Prevention to receive their check. That is the extent of the group’s involvement in the women’s lives.

Project Prevention has paid a total of 4,077 people (including 65 men), 987 of whom have been African-Americans, to get a tubal ligation (tube-tying) or an IUD, implanon (a hormonal contraceptive that is implanted in a woman’s arm), Depo-Provera (an injection that lasts three months) or (for men) a vasectomy, Harris says.

Is this a bad idea? If so, do you have a better idea?


The outrage stems as much from what Harris says as from what Project Prevention does. For one thing, in the considerable press she has sparked, Harris typically characterizes her target population less as drug-addicted women than as breeding machines, spitting out a baby a year.

“I became more angry at the system that allows [these drug-addicted women] to drop babies off yearly at the hospital with no consequences,” she told The Fix. “If there’s a scale, and it’s between her never having any more babies and her having five more babies who may be damaged, then what’s more important? For me it’s the children. And if she can’t have any more children, then that’s just the consequence of her actions, like getting AIDS or something.”

I know me some crack whores. That is one of the benefits of being a landlord in the hood. I know them by name, or at least moniker, they don't go be real names.

I have a sense of revulsion when I encounter one of them who is swelling with an infant. I can only imagine what that fetus is going through. It literally sickens me. And I am not allowed to shoot them on sight. It is frustrating.


”The last 20 women who underwent sterilization had been pregnant a total of 121 times and had 78 children in foster care.”

6 kids per crack whore and counting. Wonder what happens if the government funds that sort of transition for a few generations. Wait, that is our current plan. Demographics is destiny. Destiny.


Another of her favorite comparisons, not surprisingly, is to dogs. “We don’t allow dogs to breed,” she said. “We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children.” Given the chance to distance herself from this comment on a segment on 60 Minutes II, she doubled down, saying, “It’s the truth—they don’t just have one and two babies, they have litters.”

Litters of children to drug addicted crack whores. Nothing to see here, move along..


Her statements only invite charges that her entire campaign is racist, targeting as it does crack-cocaine users. In defense, Harris, who is white, likes to cite the fact that her husband is black and, even more counterintuitively, that they adopted and raised four black children from a crack-addicted Los Angeles mother.

Sounds racist to me...

My problem with the article is this quote:


Paying poor women who are addicted to drugs to undergo sterilization obviously leads to a thicket of troubling moral issues, even if it falls short of outright eugenics.

Honestly, if paying crack whores to not reproduce is NOT EUGENICS, I have no idea what eugenics is. I would argue that this is eugenics writ large, and explicit eugenics at that. Some people think that we would be better off if drug addicts didn't have "litters" of kids. It would be better to pay them to sterilize themselves. If the author doesn't realize that is eugenics, we can't have an honest discussion of eugenics.

So is this a good idea?

[stophorseabuse]

YES.

YES.

Maybe.

YES.

It is not forcing them, but if they are willing to give it up for 300 dollars, they really don't want babies anyway, and it saves society(including helpless brain dead children).

I hope they will offer 300 dollars for weed smokers. Free operation plus cash. :)

[CSS85]

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Oliver Wendell Holmes (Buck v Bell)

[Cheesehead]

It sounds extreme but yes.

[golfitup]

I just laugh.

[wkrq59]

Only thing is if we sterilise crack whores even of their own volition, what do we do about persons born with Down syndrome? Or rapists? Or diabetics? Or women who've just had more children than they want? Or men , like stallions, whom we want to "gentile down," or for that matter, political opponents to make sure we're all like minded?
Sterilisation voluntary or involuntary is a scary thing. It's an easy way to solve an over-population problem, but it still impedes a natural process. And what happens if a religion that mandates celebacy for its priests decides to make sure by castrating the seminarians?
I'm obviously no theologian or philosopher or moral lawyer(Is there such a profession?) but when people talk about sterilisation or castration, it has a tendency to scare the shit out of me. Because the next step I think is "What happens if the government or some other force decides at age 76 I've lived too long?????? Hmmmmm! I'd have fewer than four months!!!! I'd rather the choice be mine, all things being equal. :eek::eek::eek:

[Snipe]

Sterilisation voluntary or involuntary is a scary thing. It's an easy way to solve an over-population problem, but it still impedes a natural process. And what happens if a religion that mandates celebacy for its priests decides to make sure by castrating the seminarians?

I'm obviously no theologian or philosopher or moral lawyer(Is there such a profession?) but when people talk about sterilisation or castration, it has a tendency to scare the shit out of me. Because the next step I think is "What happens if the government or some other force decides at age 76 I've lived too long?????? Hmmmmm! I'd have fewer than four months!!!! I'd rather the choice be mine, all things being equal. :eek::eek::eek:

Eugenics is not euthanasia. Killing you off because you are a burden to society might be a good idea to balance the books to spend more resources on young welfare mothers, but it has nothing to do with eugenics. I would vote to keep you around Q, even though you were part of the liberal media.

According to Dictionary.com eugenics is the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

In some countries with national health care systems, care is denied to seniors above a certain age on a cost vs. benefit basis. The National Health Service in Britain does this. This is also what is ominously referred to as “Death Panels”. You have more to fear from socialized medicine than from eugenics. Vote for Obamacare at your own peril.

You also have a problem with people that voluntarily undergo sterilization. My mother was pregnant 9 times, and then had her tubes tied. I think it was a good move and that she had every right to do so. It doesn’t scare me. I know several men that have had vasectomies. My wife suggested that I get one, but I told her that I might want to have children with other women. She failed to see the humor in that.

She has no sense of humor. When we were younger we used to go to friends weddings and everyone used to ask when we were getting married. I used to tell that that we were waiting until we met the right people. She didn’t find that amusing either. Her lack of humor might be genetic.

You also said that sterilization "impedes a natural process". Really? Being crippled by Polio is a natural process. Dying of AIDS is a natural process. Plenty of natural processes out there that I wouldn’t recommend.

[Snipe]

Only thing is if we sterilize crack whores even of their own volition, what do we do about persons born with Down syndrome? Or rapists? Or diabetics?

What we currently do with persons born with Downs Syndrome is "mainstream" them as much as we can and allow them to reproduce. The majority of children born to a parent of Downs Syndrome also have Downs Syndrome.

Imagine the ramifications of that? If I had a Downs Syndrome child I would pay massive amounts of time and money to rear them. I could not sterilize them without their consent, and the process of sterilization for someone with Downs is costly and takes a great amount of time and effort. That is a way of discouraging it, by raising high hurdles.

Imagine if you had a kid with Downs, and the she had two or three (or seven) children also with Downs. Who is going to take care of them, especially because at some point you will die, and after that it is much harder for you to take care of the next generation.

You fear that paying people to sterilize themselves when they are drug addicts would lead to something with Downs people. I already fear that our policy with Downs is out of whack. It should be easier to voluntarily sterilize them, but it isn't. Left off the argument is if they really should have a right to have more Downs kids anyway, which is obviously Hitler by any liberal estimation. We live in a world of finite resources though, and an expansion of dependency segments like people with Downs will eventually threaten the entire social safety net if left uncurbed.

[Snipe]

As far as rapists, several states have chemical castration laws on the books for either rapists or pedophiles. It is a lot cheaper that imprisoning them for life. Are those bad laws? Castration does have eugenic effects.

[xubrew]

I think Snipe needs to be more outspoken.

[blobfan]

Rapists, drug addicts and many others essentially self-select for sterilization. I have no problem with it or requiring contraception when people are given the choice. Don't want to do it? Then don't rape, don't have kids while on public support and don't accept payment from a private group.

That's self selection. There's free will involved, no matter how ignorant and clouded.

People with Downs didn't self-select. I don't agree that they should have children that are likely to have it as well because it's guaranteeing a difficult life, but it should be their choice. I just hope they have people around them that point them in the right direction. Yes, Downs babies are likely to cost the taxpayers a lot of money but I think it's such a small group by comparison.

[Snipe]

Blobfan, people with Downs are retarded. I forget what word we are supposed to use instead of retarded, but that isn't an insult, they are actually retarded.

One of the consequences of being retarded is that you don't have the brain capacity to make good choices regarding how events may impact your future. They don't have a high amount of future-time orientation or five and ten year plans. They exist in the here and now, and being retarded is forever.

Worldwide, children of retarded parents often starve to death. I don't blame it on their parents, because they are retarded. I blame the enablers and sympathizers like you, who thinks it is fine for people with Downs to breed. It isn't their fault, they are retarded, at some point you need to have some adults in the room. Here is a little of what happens in China (http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/books/JanWonChi.html):


‘In Gansu, about 2,000 retarded babies were born each year, many to retarded parents. In a place without a single children’s hospital, where one in five children didn’t attend school, there were zero services for these children. In the late 1980s, Gansu passed China’s first eugenics law. Mentally retarded people were prohibited from bearing children.... To the outside world, the law reeked of the Third Reich. ... But when I saw the poverty and suffering in Gansu, forcible sterilization seemed more humane than doing nothing. Children of mentally retarded parents in Gansu sometimes starved to death from neglect.’

Now the retarded kids don't starve here for sure. In fact they prosper and even bear more children. It is a golden age for retards. That is because even though we don't have the money, we borrow it from the Chinese who don't support their own retarded children. Borrowing money we don't have so that retarded people can breed, is that a plan for "winning the future"?

Also, Eugenics programs ended in the US in the 1980s. Since the 1980s, the population that qualifies for social security disability has nearly tripled.

Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/298741/david-autor-disability-reihan-salam)

link (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/287587/mental-illness-and-social-mobility-reihan-salam)



Second, the program’s expenditures are extremely high and growing rapidly (Figure 1). In 2010, SSDI cash transfer payments totaled $124 billion, while the cost of Medicare for SSDI beneficiaries was $59 billion. These outlays, exceeding $1,500 for every U.S. household, comprised 7.3 percent of federal non-defense spending last year—a sum that is larger than interest payments on the federal debt. In the last two decades, outlays grew at 5.6 percent in real terms, compared to just 2.2 percent for all other Social Security spending. As a consequence SSDI’s share of total Social Security outlays has risen from one in ten dollars in 1988 to almost one in five dollars at present (Figure 2). Perhaps most ominously, SSDI expenditures now exceed by 30 percent the payroll tax revenue dedicated to funding the program. The Trustees of the Social Security Administration project that the SSDI Trust Fund will be exhausted between 2015 and 2018, at least two decades ahead of the trust fund for Social Security retirement benefits.





The tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007—from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling—a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children, well ahead of physical disabilities like cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, for which the federal programs were created.


the number of disabled mentally ill in the United States tripled over the past two decades? Every day, 1,100 adults and children are added to the government disability rolls because they have become newly disabled by mental illness, with this epidemic spreading most rapidly among our nation’s children.

But I am sure that everything is just fine...

And who is to say that these people shouldn't reproduce, Hitler? Like everything else, having babies and having the government picking up the tab is an essential human right.

I can't possibly see how anything could go wrong now.

[UCGRAD4X]

[B]Only thing is if we sterilise crack whores even of their own volition, what do we do about persons born with Down syndrome? Or rapists? Or diabetics? Or women who've just had more children than they want? Or men , like stallions, whom we want to "gentile down," or for that matter, political opponents to make sure we're all like minded?

There is a HUGE distinction between voluntary (which you mentioned first) and forced (which your other examples appear essentially. All the difference in the world and fundamentally what this coming election boils down to - a major difference between the two philosophies on display. As the power of the government grows, no matter how incrementally (and the present administration has usurped more control and continues to move, decidedly UN incrementally in the direction of totalitarianism) the fewer choices are made by individuals.

[nuts4xu]

With all due respect to the retarded people, this thread is filled with classic quotes.


I forget what word we are supposed to use instead of retarded, but that isn't an insult, they are actually retarded.


They exist in the here and now, and being retarded is forever.



Borrowing money we don't have so that retarded people can breed, is that a plan for "winning the future"?


It is a golden age for retards.

Very good topic Snipe. I would sterilze drug addicts and retards if they were willing.

"Being retarded is forever"....I need to work that quote into more of my posts somehow.

[Snipe]

Should have made this thread a poll question, but too late for that now. It seems like nobody has a problem with some of the basic ideas of Eugenics. That isn't surprising. Basically in my view we all both support and abhor eugenics at the same time.

When it comes to brother/sister marriages, most people tend to support eugenic laws against such unions. They don't even call it eugenics, just common sense. You aren't allowed to marry your brother or sister or Aunt or Uncle. Retarded people have to be able to give consent to have sex, though the gulf between a legal definition of consent and expert medical testimony and understanding is difficult to navigate. Most people don't have a problem castrating pedophiles or violent rapists either. So when it comes to incest, the severely retarded or certain classes of criminals many people agree with eugenics, and just view it as common sense.

Hitler though gave a horrible name for eugenics, and the movement has suffered ever since. The worst part of eugenics is the guilt by association. We never killed Jews, Gypsies or Gays, and a future eugenics program wouldn't start doing it either.

Part of the guilt by association can still be seen today in China. They give a bad name to eugenics and keep the fear alive.

Cannibalism in China Acceptable… If For Health (http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/04/02/cannibalism-in-china-acceptable-if-for-health/)


The Next Magazine, a weekly publication from Hong Kong, is reporting that infant fetuses have become a popular health and beauty supplement in China. It is further reported that in Guangdong, the demand for gourmet body parts is so high, that they can even be purchased directly from the hospitals.

It is reported that during a banquet hosted by a Taiwanese businessman, a servant Ms Liu from Liaoning province on the mainland inadvertently revealed the habit of eating infants/fetuses in Liaoning province and her intention to return for the supplement due to health concerns. The Taiwanese women present were horrified.

Ms Liu also disclosed that even though people can afford the human parts there are still waiting lists and those with the right connections get the “highest quality” human parts, which translates to the more mature fetuses. A male fetus is considered the “prime” human part.

Ms Liu then escorted the reporter to a location where a fetus was being prepared. A woman was chopping up a male fetus and making soup from the placenta. During the process, the woman even tried to comfort everyone by saying, “Don’t be afraid, this is just the flesh of a higher animal.”

Chinese Eat Baby Soup (http://www.eutimes.net/2009/10/chinese-eat-baby-soup/)

Warning: Don't open that link, and don't look at the pictures. Is is NSFW, and frankly I am not sure it is safe for home either.

This one came out today:

17,000 ‘Aphrodisiac’ pills made from dead, aborted babies seized by police in South Korea (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/17000-aphrodisiac-pills-made-from-dead-aborted-babies-seized-by-police-in-s)

Fucking canibals. That is so disgusting. China has a one child policy and they eat their children.

Here is the account from London's Daily Mail:

Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh discovered by customs officials in South Korea (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html)


Thousands of pills filled with powdered human flesh have been discovered by customs officials in South Korea, it was revealed today.

The capsules are in demand because they are viewed as being a medicinal 'cure-all'.

The grim trade is being run from China where corrupt medical staff are said to be tipping off medical companies when babies are aborted or delivered still-born.

What strange and wrong people...


The San Francisco Times reported that tests carried out on the pills confirmed they were made up of 99.7 per cent human remains.

The tests were successfully able to establish the genders of the babies used.

There is a huge demand for the pills which are thought to enhance stamina. Microwave-dried placenta is also sought after for its alleged 'medicinal' benefits.

Lets here it for multiculturalism! It is bad and bigoted if you look down upon other cultures, even the barbaric baby eating ones! Viva la difference!

Here is a kicker, as if that above wasn't enough:


There have been disturbing reports that some babies were those who had perished in China's notorious 'dying rooms' where youngsters are deliberately left to die because they were born into families that already had the limit of one child in country areas.

In order to keep its population down, China performs 13 million abortions a year - mainly because mothers sacrifice their newborns to avoid punishment such as severe fines or even a beating by the authorities.

The Chinese authorities have confirmed that 38 per cent of women of child-bearing age have been sterilised - but the babies that are aborted do not go to waste because of the sickening trade in using their corpses for purported medicinal purposes.

The Chinese and Hitler give a really rotten name to Eugenics. I do think Eugenics has practical applications as mentioned above, but how do you get the word out when the Chinese are sterilizing more than a third of their women, aborting millions of children and then eating them? How can I compete with that?

I think we should stop all the nation building around the world. I think it is time for wall building instead. The people on this earth are fucking barbarians, and many of them are child eating barbarians. We don't know how good we have it. Instead of inviting them in and celebrating diversity, lets keep them all out and enjoy what we have.

[UCGRAD4X]

I guess you could say about the Chinese, "They put the BABY in Baby-food."

[Snipe]

It is sick what those people do, and we shouldn't be afraid to condemn them and elevate our own culture as above them. I think we are better, and I don't want to succumb to their baby eating ways.

Cannibalism is alive and well, and always has been, just not here. Screw those people. The Aboriginals in Australia used to eat their children, and sometimes forced other children to eat their brothers or sisters. The first born child was to be made stronger by consuming the flesh of the second born. Quite a system, and I guess it was "at one with nature" because even when you go against nature, that is part of nature too.

Those people were barbarians, and the Australians tried to curb that and mainstream them into Western Civilization. The result is the current propaganda of the "lost generation", and reparations have ensued. Maybe the British should have respected the natives eating their children.

Societies that eat their young don't tend to do as well as the ones who embraced Western Civilization. I wonder why that is? After all, all cultures are equal, and you would be a bigot to judge someone. Don't we all cry for the "lost generation" of aboriginals? How cruel of the white man to make them stop eating their own children.

[vee4xu]

Well, it's officially offseason.

[xu95]

I'm starting to wonder if Snipe should be sterilized.

[Kahns Krazy]

Why end the sterilization at addicts? Why not sterilize fatties? There is a strong correlation between fat moms and fat children, and the health risks and public costs of obesity is a much wider spread problem than crack babies.

What about smokers? There is some interesting research that there are genetic indicators that increase the liklihood of someone becoming addicted to smoking, and developing cancer from smoking. Should we prevent smokers from breeding too?

Really, shouldn't anyone who exhibits poor decision making be sterilized? Take the case of an otherwise fairly intelligent couple who choses to buy a home in a dangerous neighborhood. Just for example, we'll say the West End. Everyone knows this isn't a neighborhood to raise children, just like everyone knows crack isn't good for your baby. Should we allow these people to create more people that may share their poor decision making genes?

Where should we stop? There used to be a website called "Am I Hot or Not" where people would vote on if you were hot. Could we make a website where people would post their breeding resumes and the rest of us could decide as a society if we wanted more of that or not?

[Snipe]

Khans, you just made this personal. I can't stop you from that, and if I am offended you are safe because I don't come from a protected minority.

That is the way these things go sometimes. I didn't make this personal. But here we go, on your new trajectory.

Khans you have already sterilized yourself, because you have decided not to have children. Many other people like you with high intelligence have made the same decision. That has an effect on future generations. If you want to debate that, I would be glad to do so.

Your predecessors fought hard so that you could be here today. Not one of your ancestors ever broke the line, as evidence of you being here today. You are going to break that line. They all fought for you in the way of human evolution.

Would the human race be better off if high-IQ people like you had more progeny? I would argue in the affirmative. I think we need more people like you. I think we are better off with more people like you. That doesn't look like it is in the cards, mainly because people like you have no children.

Should I mourn that, or even be allowed to discus it? Is it appropriate to bring it up? Your decision to not have children is not what every single one of your direct ancestors have made, dating back hundreds of thousands of years. They did it all for you, and you are the end of the line. Self selected and loud and proud.

Does it matter? Shouldn't matter to you, or your children, because you have none and have no intention of breaking that veil. So talk all you want about sterilizing me, you have already sterilized yourself. We are no better for it. One day I think we will regret the loss of people with your intellectual capacity. It will be too late then.

[Kahns Krazy]

Khans, you just made this personal. ... I didn't make this personal. .

When you say you didn't make it personal, you mean you didn't make it personal to you. Millions of people and families struggle with addiction. You made it very personal to them. Would you like me to introduce you to my cousin whose father killed himself after a long fight with a narcotics addiction? He blew his own head off. Nothing personal. You can explain to her how you would support her father having been sterilized. Explain to her how in your world, it would be better if she didn't exist. But don't worry, it's not personal.

We have a good friend in common whose sister has Downs Syndrome. Do you want to call him and read your post to him and see if he takes that personally? Tell him that his sister is retarded. Remind him that retarded is forever. Tell him how it's a golden age for retards and see if he is cheered up by that. Then tell him not to worry, because it's not personal.

Your whole eugenics thing on the board is getting old. I think you've worn out the shock value. I applied some of your own arguments in a way that would apply to you in a clearly farcical way, and you got all butt-hurt about it. Maybe it's time to hang up the eugenics bit for a while.

[Snipe]

Why end the sterilization at addicts? Why not sterilize fatties? There is a strong correlation between fat moms and fat children, and the health risks and public costs of obesity is a much wider spread problem than crack babies.

What about smokers? There is some interesting research that there are genetic indicators that increase the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to smoking, and developing cancer from smoking. Should we prevent smokers from breeding too?

Really, shouldn't anyone who exhibits poor decision making be sterilized? Take the case of an otherwise fairly intelligent couple who choses to buy a home in a dangerous neighborhood. Just for example, we'll say the West End. Everyone knows this isn't a neighborhood to raise children, just like everyone knows crack isn't good for your baby. Should we allow these people to create more people that may share their poor decision making genes?

Where should we stop? There used to be a website called "Am I Hot or Not" where people would vote on if you were hot. Could we make a website where people would post their breeding resumes and the rest of us could decide as a society if we wanted more of that or not?

I might as well answer your questions.


Why end the sterilization at addicts? Why not sterilize fatties?

The article was about addicts voluntarily sterilizing themselves. If "fatties" wanted to voluntarily sterilize themselves, who is to stop them? People like you voluntarily sterilized themselves, and yet you don't complain about your own personal choices. Should we make you have children? That is crazy.


What about smokers?

I think that if smokers wanted to voluntarily sterilize themselves we should let them do it. Who is to tell them that they should have children? Not me. I don't think the government should force people to have children.


Should we prevent smokers from breeding too?

I would say no. Who do we do prevent from breeding now? Brothers and Sisters? You aren't allowed to marry your Aunt or Uncle or your brother or sister. Is that an injustice? Where does the madness stop! Let those brothers and sisters have kids! Not allowing them to procreate has produced such a slippery slope that we now are going after smokers! Or not.



Really, shouldn't anyone who exhibits poor decision making be sterilized?

In my opinion, no. Poor decision making compared to who? Can you be more specific, and explain how that poor decision making hurts not only us but future generations? I can't see how that would fly in the general population. This article was about drug addicts undergoing voluntary sterilization. If people that admitted to being poor decision makers wanted to sterilize themselves, I wouldn't stop them.


Take the case of an otherwise fairly intelligent couple who choses to buy a home in a dangerous neighborhood. Just for example, we'll say the West End. Everyone knows this isn't a neighborhood to raise children, just like everyone knows crack isn't good for your baby. Should we allow these people to create more people that may share their poor decision making genes?

I don't think that we should sterilize people on a regional basis. I also don't think we should sterilize "dangerous neighborhoods", at least not outright and explicitly.


Where should we stop? There used to be a website called "Am I Hot or Not" where people would vote on if you were hot. Could we make a website where people would post their breeding resumes and the rest of us could decide as a society if we wanted more of that or not?

I don't think it would be a good idea if everyone was forced to post their breeding resumes so the rest of us could vote. I would not be opposed if people did that voluntarily. I wouldn't post there, but if people wanted to know if others think they should breed, how would you stop them?

That ends the question and answer portion.

=====================

As far as the government forcibly sterilizing people, when we had eugenics programs they always had a fairly narrow focus, as one would expect. We have done this before, it isn't a new idea. It extended mostly to the severely retarded. Other than that the targets were harsh criminals or the insane. We still have laws that are against brothers and sisters and Aunts and Uncles having babies. We still have laws where the mentally retarded are incapable of giving consent to sex and thus procreation. We still have laws where we chemically castrate pedophiles and rapists. These laws are all eugenic in nature in some respect.

I am fine with prohibiting incest. That doesn't mean I want to sterilizing people of variant political beliefs. I am fine with sterilizing people with Downs, that doesn't mean that I favor sterilizing environmentalists. I am fine when we castrate pedophiles and rapists. I would be fine if we sterilized the severely mentally ill.

If you ask me "Where does it end?", I would answer that it ends right there. No slippery slope for me.

What about Jails? Isn't that a slippery slope? Once you allow the government to incarcerate a population, where does it end? Are jails bad?

I think we incarcerate too many people, many for victimless crimes. But I don't blame jails, or think that getting rid of jails would be a good idea. I just want to reform the penal system. It is not too much to ask. Will we all one day be locked up on your slippery slope? I doubt it, but too many people are locked up today, as well as too few who are truly violent criminals. I think the drug war is pushing too many non-violent in jail while squeezing too many violent back into the general population.

How do we solve this? Well today we have a democracy, so the way to do this is though political means. Tomorrow, who knows? In the history of man, democracies don't last forever. After the collapse we get to other methods of the decision making process. Those might be really bad.

[Snipe]

When you say you didn't make it personal, you mean you didn't make it personal to you. Millions of people and families struggle with addiction. You made it very personal to them. Would you like me to introduce you to my cousin whose father killed himself after a long fight with a narcotics addiction? He blew his own head off. Nothing personal. You can explain to her how you would support her father having been sterilized. Explain to her how in your world, it would be better if she didn't exist. But don't worry, it's not personal.


This article is about addicts self selecting to be sterilized. They do it of their own volition. I support that. They can't support the children on their own, and they are given up to the foster care system.

Many people struggle with addiction. Some of them still lead responsible lives and have children. Those that can't are free to sterilize themselves for all I care. I support that.



We have a good friend in common whose sister has Downs Syndrome. Do you want to call him and read your post to him and see if he takes that personally? Tell him that his sister is retarded. Remind him that retarded is forever. Tell him how it's a golden age for retards and see if he is cheered up by that. Then tell him not to worry, because it's not personal.


He is a good friend and I love him. I don't think his sister should reproduce and have offspring. It isn't personal, I think it is better for all of us if that is the case.

I don't know if she has had children, or they have put in a process of preventing it. It could be that they worked to have her sterilized or use birth control. We would not know if that is the case (unless you asked). They may indeed support my position that it is better if she doesn't have children. Just because we have a common friend that has these circumstances doesn't mean that they also think that she should be having kids as well. I don't think that she should be having kids. If I had to bet, I would bet that they agree with me. Who is to say they are on your side of this?




Your whole eugenics thing on the board is getting old. I think you've worn out the shock value. I applied some of your own arguments in a way that would apply to you in a clearly farcical way, and you got all butt-hurt about it. Maybe it's time to hang up the eugenics bit for a while.

I am not hurt about it. You can continue.

I am not looking for shock value. I actually believe in eugenics. I think we all do in a way, just most of us implicitly vs me making it explicit.

I believe in everything that I say in this thread, or at least pretty much everything. I reserve the right to change my opinion when pointed out wrong, but I think this thread expressed my belief at least in a general sense. This is not shock value stuff.

I don't think that I am wrong either. As long as people reply, I will reply to them. If anyone wants to "prove me wrong", go ahead.

I also am going to touch on eugenics in a future thread in this way: I don't think that we can stop eugenics or our eugenic future as the human genome project advances. We have identified genes for desirable traits, and people will want those traits. If I could choose my offspring genetically they would all be tall, handsome, athletic and brilliant. As science advances we are going to be able to make more an more of those choices. Fewer things like genetic illness will be left to chance. It is already happening. A wide majority of Downs kids are already aborted. That is eugenics, and we practice it every day today, not in some future Orwellian society.

No reason not to talk about it. It is going to happen anyway whether you like it or not.

I am all for a robust debate. The future of humanity is at stake. That is what Eugenics is all about. We should also talk about dysgenics, which is what happens when the unfit procreate at higher rates than the fit, and that is a real problem. Not everyone can grow up to be President.

[X-band '01]

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear the term "eugenics" I just think of improved genes, whether athletic, mental or emotional. Sure, I'll make Wrath of Khan references (whether serious or in jest) where appropriate, but in that movie (and the Space Seed episode from the Star Trek TV show) they talk about eugenics in terms of human evolution. Advances in technology and decisions associated with such are not the same thing as genetic "supermen" in our society.

Deciding who and who cannot reproduce can be a very dangerous slippery slope as Q noted above - it's one thing for individuals to do it, but quite another for governments to legislate and mandate birth control. I always try to remember the sanctity and dignity of each life whether genetically superior or inferior.

[vee4xu]

God is God and no one else is. Even if some people think they are, they're not. For the atheists and agnostics in the crowd, all I can say is that all are afforded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That includes the right to be born.

[Snipe]

You already have lost that battle, nobody now has the right to be born.

You might want that, but you don't have it. Downs kids are aborted all the time. The majority of them are aborted today. People are having fewer kids, and they don't have those resources and I don't blame them.

Who do you think is acting like God here? Who thinks they are God? What about the people who abort children? Are they God? What if your child had a deformity and wouldn't survive, should that kid still be born to die? Lots of shit can go wrong, and when you have few kids you need to make the ones you have count. People that have never had children might not have a good understanding of that.

Plenty of kids are born that only live for a few weeks or months. Many of them could be diagnosed in the womb and aborted. We shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands on those kids, because those dollar amounts represent actual resources. Like we could have funded more schools. It does make a difference, and those people that will die shortly after birth are sometimes costly.

I used to hang with a nurse who assisted operations of crack babies with three chambered hearts, or so she said. The life expectancy of these kids was days and weeks, but when they were successful the stretched them into months. They fabricated a fourth chamber for the heart, and she said it was great practice. They stretched days and weeks into weeks and months. They did it with crack babies (so she said) who would have died at birth basically.

Who wins there? These operations were expensive.

A lot of the money spent on medical in this country is "free", which basically means that if you pay taxes you are paying for it. If you pay taxes, it isn't free to you, you are paying for free.

[Snipe]

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear the term "eugenics" I just think of improved genes, whether athletic, mental or emotional.

That is exactly what it means. Eugenics is the constant search for the cause of betterment of the entire human race.

Eugenics isn't evil, and Khans can't stop me from saying it. Eugenics is also natural, if you believe in evolution. Who doesn't want their children to benefit from science?

[blobfan]

Really, shouldn't anyone who exhibits poor decision making be sterilized? ...
The original article wasn't talking about forced sterilization. It's about incentivizing groups of people that exhibit certain types of behavior to not procreate, either temporarily or permanently. I just don't see what's wrong with that.

[vee4xu]

You already have lost that battle, nobody now has the right to be born.

You might want that, but you don't have it. Downs kids are aborted all the time. The majority of them are aborted today. People are having fewer kids, and they don't have those resources and I don't blame them.

Who do you think is acting like God here? Who thinks they are God? What about the people who abort children? Are they God? What if your child had a deformity and wouldn't survive, should that kid still be born to die? Lots of shit can go wrong, and when you have few kids you need to make the ones you have count. People that have never had children might not have a good understanding of that.

Plenty of kids are born that only live for a few weeks or months. Many of them could be diagnosed in the womb and aborted. We shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands on those kids, because those dollar amounts represent actual resources. Like we could have funded more schools. It does make a difference, and those people that will die shortly after birth are sometimes costly.

I used to hang with a nurse who assisted operations of crack babies with three chambered hearts, or so she said. The life expectancy of these kids was days and weeks, but when they were successful the stretched them into months. They fabricated a fourth chamber for the heart, and she said it was great practice. They stretched days and weeks into weeks and months. They did it with crack babies (so she said) who would have died at birth basically.

Who wins there? These operations were expensive.

A lot of the money spent on medical in this country is "free", which basically means that if you pay taxes you are paying for it. If you pay taxes, it isn't free to you, you are paying for free.

Whoa there, chief. My comments were all generic and not meant to be specific to anyone. But, I know this is offseason and these kinds of threads are what keep you on your game for in-season. So carry on the diatribe. I for one have become both used to and amused by them.

[X-band '01]

That is exactly what it means. Eugenics is the constant search for the cause of betterment of the entire human race.

Eugenics isn't evil, and Khans can't stop me from saying it. Eugenics is also natural, if you believe in evolution. Who doesn't want their children to benefit from science?

I'm sure everyone will take advantage of what they can from an ethical standpoint and some people won't care about the ethics involved.

If you're advocating that we should be looking to artificially enhance certain traits in favor of others, are we not taking a step closer to cloning human beings instead of mere natural reproduction?

But getting back to another point - I'll disclose that I do have a sister with Downs (and one of my old college roommates also had a brother with Downs). As one would expect, life was hardly a bowl of cherries on my parents trying to raise her along with the rest of my family, but given my own personal upbringing I would reasonably assume that the thought of abortion would never have crossed my parents' mind.

Personally, I don't have a problem with families deciding they should be big or small. But do we really want to make some kind of "athletic gene camps" or "artistic gene camps" down the line? That's not a question that I can simply give an absolute answer right now.

At least people can take solace in the fact that there likely won't a Virgin X Band Class of 2033 anytime soon. I'm enough of a nimrod around here as it is.

[Snipe]

X-Band, many complicated questions arise once we start being able to manipulate genes. These are questions have been around but the technology to do so is advancing at a rapid pace.

I don't know the answers, but I am fairly confident that science will go forward and not look back. I am not saying that I am an advocate of our new eugenic future, I am only saying that I think this is going to happen whether I or you like it or not.

I have talked about the genetically engineered mice before. They can make mice with better memories to remember mazes by manipulating their genome. Has it been tried in humans already? I wouldn't be surprised. If it hasn't, it will be in the future.

People with better memories would have an advantage, at least in remembering things. That would help academically, so those people would advance and be considered smarter. Are their unintended consequences to that? I would assume so, and one can never know all of the unintended consequences. Perhaps a society that could never forget would have a hard time trying to "forgive and forget". Perhaps post-traumatic stress would be even worse for people with horrible experiences that could keep reliving them in their own mind. Perhaps the deleted gene that is replaced by the good memory gene was good for something else that we didn't know about.

Intelligence isn't a gene as far as the science now says, but a collection of many genes, all affecting intelligence in small ways, either beneficially or malignantly.

I follow a blog called West Hunter (http://westhunt.wordpress.com/) by two American academics who are into genetics, anthropology and human evolution. Their names are Gregory M. Cochran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran) and Henry Harpending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Harpending). Together the co-authored The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/The-000-Year-Explosion-Civilization/dp/0465002218) in 2009.

Here is a part of one post: Get Smart (http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/get-smart/)


The second approach, spell-checking the genome, might be also called taking out the trash. The idea is simply to fix most or all of the broken genes. There are a lot of them. The effects of genetic errors do not merely take the form of serious diseases like PKU, which causes severe retardation in untreated individuals with two copies of the defective gene. Carriers of PKU, those with only one copy of the defective gene, also suffer ill effects, mainly a slight depression of IQ. Everyone carries single copies of damaged genes that would be lethal in double dose – in fact, geneticists estimate that the average individual carries as many as five lethal genes. As a carrier, you may produce half the normal level of some enzyme, which usually does not cause severe trouble in itself but does decrease efficiency. The average individual, indeed every individual, is thought to carry many more than five less serious genetic errors, perhaps as many as 100, as these less serious errors are only slowly eliminated by natural selection. In other words, every person has many hidden genetic flaws that reduce performance and efficiency in many ways. The total impact of these errors is thought to be quite large, and must surely be very significant for human intelligence, which is probably the most complex of all adaptations.

If we could edit the genome, we could fix them all. Probably no one would object to fixing any particular genetic error, and that must mean that there could be no objections to fixing all of them. After all, he who has said A must also say Z! The difference between humans whose DNA has been spell-checked and normals is likely to be large. They would almost certainly be smarter and healthier, and this kind of change is, I think, guaranteed to work and be safe. We know that the unbroken form of any given gene is safe, since almost everyone else already has it. You could compare these spell-checked humans to a Lexus – every little thing is done just right. There is no innovation at all in this kind of genetic intervention, almost no risk, and the resulting advantages are likely to be very significant.

I thought that was an interesting approach. Instead of giving someone any new genetic boost, they would simply filter your genome for the broken genes or "genetic noise" that clutters up your DNA. It usually has slight negative effects, but in large combinations can be quite bad. Taking out those negative adaptions wouldn't change your race or ancestry. You will still be you, and a product of whatever tribe you come from, you would just be a more healthy and intelligent you. It wouldn't transform any of us into Einstein, but we would all be smarter and healthier. Sounds like a winner.

Anyone who is interested should check out that blog. They talk about a wide variety of topics and they are not hung up on being politically incorrect, for example: "This suggests that it is more important to be average than to appear average: when Gladwell talks about ‘igon values’, he’s being sincere. He may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you: he really is an idiot."

Cheers!

[Snipe]

Ann Althouse (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/05/objects-characteristic-of-business.html) was looking through a Cass Sunstien book "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014311526X?ie=UTF8&tag=althouse-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=014311526X) and found this:


Teenage girls who see that other teenagers are having children are more likely to become pregnant themselves. Obesity is contagious. If your best friends get fat, your risk of gaining weight goes up.... (Page 55.)

Teenage pregnancy is a serious problem for many girls, and those who have one child, at (say) eighteen, often become pregnant again within a year or two. Several cities, including Greensboro, North Carolina, have experimented with a “dollar a day” program, by which teenage girls with a baby receive a dollar for each day in which they are not pregnant. Thus far the results have been extremely promising. A dollar a day is a trivial cost to the city, even for a year or two, so the plan’s total cost is extremely low, but the small recurring payment is salient enough to encourage teenage mothers to take steps to avoid getting pregnant again. And because taxpayers end up paying a significant amount for many children born to teenagers, the costs appear to be far less than the benefits. Many people are touting “dollar a day” as a model program for helping reduce teenage pregnancies. (Surely there are more such programs to be invented. Consider that a nudge to think of one.) (Page 234.)

Sounds like a deal. I think that most people would agree that paying people not to reproduce is better than telling them not to reproduce. Or to put it another way, paying them to not reproduce is better than paying them to reproduce, which is the current incentive of the welfare state.

[xudash]

Ann Althouse (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/05/objects-characteristic-of-business.html) was looking through a Cass Sunstien book "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014311526X?ie=UTF8&tag=althouse-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=014311526X) and found this:



Sounds like a deal. I think that most people would agree that paying people not to reproduce is better than telling them not to reproduce. Or to put it another way, paying them to not reproduce is better than paying them to reproduce, which is the current incentive of the welfare state.

Very well put. It's not our place to limit free will, though it would seem justifiable with some of the neanderthals walking around on this rock; we may as well influence good behavior. If it is true that being proactive like this is much less expensive than being reactive with the entitlement fever or ill bred set, then I'm all for it.

Nothing to do with teen age pregnancy, but everything to do with costly idiot behavior: a woman down here stabbed and killed a man the other day - - she killed him over a pack of cigarettes. No waste of oxygen there.

[Snipe]

Pol Suggests Paying Poor Women to Tie Tubes (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5886592&page=1#.T7KOjlL09EM)


As Hurricane Gustav loomed off the coast of Louisiana, thousands of impoverished people flocked into shelters, where some of them seemed unprepared to take care of their young children's basic needs, forgetting to bring along diapers or medicine.

That heartbreaking scenario inspired Louisiana Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo to start thinking about ways to stem generational welfare, in which many welfare recipients have children who also end up dependent on government assistance, according to the representative.

His idea -- giving $1,000 to poor women to undergo reproductive sterilization by Fallopian tube ligation -- is stirring up controversy among some medical professionals, who say that the proposal is offensive and smacks of long-discredited eugenics programs.

LaBruzzo has also suggested other controversial ideas: paying poor men to get vasectomies and giving tax incentives for college-educated wealthy couples to have more children.

"We have a problem of generational welfare in Lousiana," he tells ABCNews.com, adding today that he has modified his position to seek financial incentives for temporary forms of birth control instead of surgery.

"It's a horrible problem and we were brainstorming about some of the options, so I requested some information from Baton Rouge about the projected growth in welfare recipients and how much a proposal like this would cost," LaBruzzo said.

Programs like this may be the most effective methods of combating child poverty. And as the children of mulch-generational welfare grow up to become poor parents, this could be the most successful anti-poverty program that we could embrace.


"After this recent storm, we had some issues where these people were going into shelters and taking their cigarettes and welfare but didn't have diapers or insulin for diabetic kids, and they felt they were entitled to say, 'Give me, give me.' None of them didn't want to set up cots or do anything."

We have seen what happens when we pay people to reproduce, witness above. Why not try it out the other way around?

[Kahns Krazy]

Sounds like a deal. I think that most people would agree that paying people not to reproduce is better than telling them not to reproduce. Or to put it another way, paying them to not reproduce is better than paying them to reproduce, which is the current incentive of the welfare state.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I would agree that paying them not to reproduce is more likely to get them to not reproduce, but I haven't been convinced that it is "better".

I will wholeheartedly agree that the current system of blind income tax payments to breeders is very, very broken, and encourages irresponsible breeding. If you can start by fixing that, you may find that you don't need to pay anyone to stop breeding.

Paying addicts to sterilize themselves ("voluntarily", though it's questionable if an addict can truly be making sound decisions) reminds me of Bumfights, where filmmakers were paying addicts to fight each other and perform stunts.

If I suddenly had a billion dollars and wanted to pay homeless people to wear dog leashes and crawl around downtown for my personal amusement, would it be okay if they were doing it voluntarily?

[Snipe]

Very well put. It's not our place to limit free will, though it would seem justifiable with some of the neanderthals walking around on this rock; we may as well influence good behavior. If it is true that being proactive like this is much less expensive than being reactive with the entitlement fever or ill bred set, then I'm all for it.

Nothing to do with teen age pregnancy, but everything to do with costly idiot behavior: a woman down here stabbed and killed a man the other day - - she killed him over a pack of cigarettes. No waste of oxygen there.

I tend to look at the world and human actions as a result of incentives. I think that is what the Nudge book is about, providing the proper incentives. When you look at what some of the negative incentives have wrought, you can see that incentives are a powerful thing. For example, paying only single women to have kids in the 1960s led women to throw out their husbands or not get married. That ended up being horrible for everyone.

I think that we should incentivize at risk youth to do the right thing. Give poor kids a meaningful bonus for perfect attendance, and getting good grades, passing achievement tests and graduating high school. Pay them not to have kids? Sure, it beats the alternative. I am not against any of those things.

I am also not against coercion in some selective situations. We have mothers that abuse children. When they get pregnant with another child, the authorities are often waiting outside the delivery room to take custody. They aren't going to let that abusive psychopath have a chance at abusing another one of her children. Should she be sterilized against her will if she won't take the money? I would say yes.

Withdrawing welfare is also another option. If you can't support your children right now, you should be on a long term birth control program that prevents you from having more. If you agree to such, we will give you welfare benefits. If you choose to have more children anyway, you will forgo those benefits. In that instance they still have the choice, so no rights are violated.

[Snipe]

I don't necessarily agree with that. I would agree that paying them not to reproduce is more likely to get them to not reproduce, but I haven't been convinced that it is "better".

I should substitute "more effective" for better, and then you don't have to worry about the value judgement.


I will wholeheartedly agree that the current system of blind income tax payments to breeders is very, very broken, and encourages irresponsible breeding. If you can start by fixing that, you may find that you don't need to pay anyone to stop breeding.

Outlays for children are huge. They are in the tax code, the welfare state, public school system and our health system. We pay a lot for children, for sure. I think the point should be getting the most out of our money, and I think eugenics speaks to that.

Plans like Social Security depend upon future generations contributing to stay solvent, so it would be in our best interests both to have future generations and that they be very productive.


Paying addicts to sterilize themselves ("voluntarily", though it's questionable if an addict can truly be making sound decisions) reminds me of Bumfights, where filmmakers were paying addicts to fight each other and perform stunts.

If I suddenly had a billion dollars and wanted to pay homeless people to wear dog leashes and crawl around downtown for my personal amusement, would it be okay if they were doing it voluntarily?

Part of the problem with sterilizing retarded people voluntarily is that they have to give consent and it is tough to prove that they actually understand what they are doing. I find that a bit mind boggling, because if they can't grasp the concept, should they be having children? Likewise with your argument for drug addicts, if they can't make sound decisions, they shouldn't be becoming parents anyway in my book.

Once of the things about modern medical advancements is that you can sterilize people temporarily through advanced contraception. A woman can get norplant and be unable to have children for multiple years. She isn't permanently sterilized though, and if she cleans up she could actually have it removed. If poor at risk woman were paid to go on norplant from high school until 25, they would give themselves a much better chance at getting out of poverty, as well as be better prepared once they have children. Having kids today for some young mothers is a good way to get your own place, paid for by the state, and foodstamps and other benefits as well. If we are going to be paying people, we might as well pay people for better behavior.

As for your homeless on dog leashes, I don't think it would be illegal. People would just think you are a jerk. People accept money to do all sorts of things, like sex or dancing naked in titty bars. People shovel shit for a living. Some people think that working at McDonalds in a "McJob" is degrading, (we call those people liberals).

Would I be against the legality of someone being able to pay people to wear a dog leash? Probably not. In fact if you paid me enough money I would wear one. Would people judge you? Sure. I think it would be a waste of money.

I think recently a wireless company paid homeless people to be wireless conduits. They wore some sort of electronic device that allowed free internet to people in range, along with a t-shirt advertising the wireless service. Is that a good idea? I wouldn't do it. Should they be legally allowed to do it? Sure.

[paulxu]

You could compare these spell-checked humans to a Lexus – every little thing is done just right. There is no innovation at all in this kind of genetic intervention, almost no risk, and the resulting advantages are likely to be very significant.

Good God...does that mean since I haven't been spell-checked that I'm a Buick?

[GoMuskies]

I think we just need sterilization panels. For example, sterilization of these parents would be a unanimous decision:

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/worst-parent-week-dad-puts-toddler-washing-machine-183500809.html

[joebba]

How about this joker.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/18/father-30-kids-by-11-women-cant-pay-child-support/

[Roach]

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Oliver Wendell Holmes (Buck v Bell)

Buck v. Bell did not involve drug addicted individuals; rather, the case involved a young woman, Carrie Buck, with an alleged form of "feeble-mindedness" that neither rendered her infertile nor had prevented her from performing well in school or attaining an adult-level reading comprehension and normal IQ. The State of Virginia sought to sterilize her, which she protested, on the grounds that her "feeblemindedness" had led her to prostitution and, consequently, an illegitimate child. Carrie Buck was, herself, the illegitimate child of a prostitute, who had been arrested many years earlier and declared "incompetent", despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Her mother institutionalized, Carrie was adoped by another family, seemed to enjoy an otherwise normal childhood, and performed well in school. However, when she became pregnant as a teenager, her adoptive family had her committed to a state sanitarium, arguing that feeblemindedness had led her to the same moral turpitude as her biological mother. What was later proven, and what the Supreme Court never heard, was that Buck's adoptive family's request that she be committed and their claim that her pregnancy was illegitimate were nothing more than an elaborate smoke screen. Buck had actually been raped by her adoptive mother's nephew, and the family sought to conceal his guilt by having Carrie fall on the sword.

In what is held by nearly all constitutional scholars as one of the most offensive cases in all of American jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Virginia. Carrie Buck was sterilized, even though she was actually a mentally competent rape victim. Additionally, her daughter, Vivian, who had also been declared "mentally incompetent" was adopted by another family, became an honor-roll student and seemingly socially well-adjusted child before dying of of measles at the age of 11. Despite the seeming normalness of both Carrie and Vivian Buck, the court accepted them as feebleminded, stated that "three generations of imbeciles is enough" and allowed Carrie's sterilization. She is said to have become depressed and reclusive as a result, and spent most of the rest of her life reading.

The only reason I know so much about this case is because I completed my upper-level writing requirement in law school by writing a 70-page paper on the jurisprudence of Cincinnati's own William Howard Taft. It was during Taft's tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that Buck v. Bell was decided, an 8-1 decision in which Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic, was the sole dissenter. Given his track record in other human rights related cases, legal scholars are often surprised by Taft finding with the majority. However, Taft's singular goal as Chief Justice was "massing the court", or enabing as many unanimous or near-unanimous decisions as possible, so as to enable society to have a sense of law being settled. Additionally, Taft wrote the Court's opinions at a rate greater than any other Chief Justice in Supreme Court history. Most typically, when Taft was in agreement with a case, he wrote the opinion. When he disagreed, but not too strongly, he would normally assent to the majority and suppress his dissent. Here, Taft's nemesis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote the opinion. The theory most legal scholars have expressed regarding Taft in this case was that he disagreed with majority, but not strongly enough to join Butler's dissent and undermine his desire for Court uniformity. Given his success in suppressing the dissents of other justices in other cases, it's entirely possible that the actually assent-dissent ratio was a narrow 5-4, and that Taft succeeded in suppressing all but Butler's dissent, faithful Catholic that he was. Regardless, the 8-1 decision is, in hindsight, alarming.

Even more surprising is how quickly American jurisprudence turned on the Buck v. Bell precedent. It was effectively overturned in 1942 in Skinner v. Oklahoma in a unanimous opinion. It is frequently thought that Hiter's "Aryan race" psycho-babble, then at its zenith, caused most Americans, and especially legal scholars, to re-examine eugenics and, specifically, forced sterilization. Since Skinner, there has been no state-sanctioned sterilization anywhere in the United States.

To me, it's a tragedy that a false law would even allow the miscarriage of justice that was Carrie Buck's sterilization in the first place, and it saddens me how often a disgusting, morally repugnant quote from this case ("three generations of imbeciles ...") is referenced to defend eugenics and forced sterilization (not that this was your intention, CSS85). The facts of this case, especially those which ultimately proved Carrie Buck to be both a rape victim and mentally competent, illustrate just how immoral forced sterilization is. The practice effectively seeks to ascertain the "fitness" of a person for procreation, as if his or her value and dignity as a person is as superficial as the surface-level traits and behaviors that some government authority can identify. Not the smartest, prettiest, virtuous or most disease-free person? Forget about becoming a parent; we don't want children like you. Excuse me, but since when has any one person's potential for greateness related directly, 1-to-1, to his or her parents' lives? That's right, never. Take a look at the lives of John Nash or Roscoe Pound for notable examples. The fact that this assessment so frequently proves false is more than enough reason never to use parents' shortcomings as a means of determining whether a child should come into the world.

As to the drug-addicted, the mere fact that users are able to get clean, rebound, and live meaningful, productive lives should prevent the state from forcefully sterilizing them.

[Roach]

I'm a little surprised. After a fair amount of goading for quite some time, I finally jump into the Eugenics fray, and Snipe is nowhere to be found ....

[Snipe]

Roach, be patient. I answer my threads. I always do.

First off, I would like to applaud you for giving us the case of Carrie Buck in detail.

In your defense of not sterilizing the retarded, you pointed to someone that was sterilized and was not purported to actually be retarded. To me that isn't a defense of not sterilizing the retarded, that is a reason to have high standards.

We imprison people that our innocent. We all know this. People have legitimate claims that we have even executed innocent people. In my opinion, that isn't an argument against law and order, prisons, or capital punishment, that is an argument for higher standards.

If you are "proving" that she wasn't actually retarded, then your argument has nothing to do with sterilizing the retarded. We just need higher standards, to make sure they are retarded. Your argument is that she is a fake retard. That point is taken on your evidence. What about real life retards? Should we have a policy?

[Snipe]

How about this joker.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/18/father-30-kids-by-11-women-cant-pay-child-support/

Father of 30 kids by 11 women can't pay child support (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/18/father-30-kids-by-11-women-cant-pay-child-support/#ixzz1vhjd3371)


A Tennessee man's problems paying child support aren't so surprising: He has 30 children with 11 different women.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville, is pleading with the state to help him pay for child support, citing the fact that he earns minimum wage. Hatchett made national news in 2009, when his tally stood at 21 children.

“I had four kids in the same year," he said. "Twice.”

The mothers of his children are supposed to get anywhere from $25 a month to $309 a month for help raising the children. The state takes half of Hatchett's paycheck to divide among the mothers of his children, but now Hatchett has petitioned the state to help him meet his obligations.

The children range in age from toddlers to 14 years old.

Who here thinks that this man should not get a vasectomy? I do. Who here thinks he should get a state mandated vasectomy? I do.

Anyone? He is 33, and had plenty more time. What is the argument for him to have perhaps 30 more children? Desmond Hatchett has plenty of more time to impregnate more women.

He can't support his kids, and he has taken his case to court because he can't possibly support 30 kids. He wants you to pay, while he has more kids. Why does he have kids? Simple, you can afford it.

Desmond Hatchett is 33, and he still works for the minimum wage. My guess is that he has a low IQ. My guess (and the actual science) is that intelligence is heritable, and that his children will inherit those same low traits.

Look at it this way: If it costs $15,000 a year for each of his 30 kids for every year of public school, then the cost of public school alone will be 6.5 million dollars from K-12 for 30 kids. That doesn't add the cost of welfare, public housing, food stamps, or incarceration, let alone the public cost of crime some of his delinquent kids are bound to do upon tax paying citizens.

Over decades, the outcomes for single black children are horrible, the worst of the worst in fact. When a teenage black female has a child out of wedlock that child basically has little chance given the statistics. This man has fathered 30 of them, and they are going to father more kids and take more government benefits, and I suspect a sizable proportion relative to the normal population will end up in jail. Incarceration costs more than public education, though you probably learn more there.

Should the government be allowed to forcibly sterilize this out of control man who can't support the 30 children that he already has?


Who is against his sterilization?

[Roach]

Roach, be patient. I answer my threads. I always do.

First off, I would like to applaud you for giving us the case of Carrie Buck in detail.

In your defense of not sterilizing the retarded, you pointed to someone that was sterilized and was not purported to actually be retarded. To me that isn't a defense of not sterilizing the retarded, that is a reason to have high standards.

We imprison people that our innocent. We all know this. People have legitimate claims that we have even executed innocent people. In my opinion, that isn't an argument against law and order, prisons, or capital punishment, that is an argument for higher standards.

If you are "proving" that she wasn't actually retarded, then your argument has nothing to do with sterilizing the retarded. We just need higher standards, to make sure they are retarded. Your argument is that she is a fake retard. That point is taken on your evidence. What about real life retards? Should we have a policy?

Snipe, the real "retarded" are naturally infertile.

[Roach]

Alright, screw it. I'm dropping the gauntlet, Snipe. Look, I get your argument. You think that we should control the genes that comprise future generations of children, and thereby root out disease, stupidity, or whatever other trait society finds undesirable, be it red hair, a big nose, flat chest, small pecker, or whatever else makes people happy. We'll have our designer babies and turn children into a means to their selfish parents' end. Reproduction will effectively be reduced to utilitarianism, in which we only allow the traits that supposedly bring people the greatest subjective happiness possible. And herein lies the first problem. A third party's subjective happiness about a particular child's traits, whether physical, mental, personality, or otherwise, is an invalid basis upon which to decide a child's worthiness to be alive. Frankly, it's inhumane in that it suggests that, in an ideal world, the diseased, unintelligent, ugly, or otherwise unlikable wouldn't be allowed to come into existence at all.

And, to take a drastic turn, I find this notion personally, deeply offensive. Part of the reason I have avoided these conversations for so long is due the fact that I inherited a genetic, life-threatening kidney disease from my father, Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD). At the age of 30, I'm already taking 8 prescription medications per day, just to keep my heart pumping normally and my kidneys functioning at 100%, despite the cysts that riddle them and continually crowd out normal kidney tissue. There is a non-negligible chance that I will be dead before I'm 50. In fact, just over 50% of PKD patients die of end-stage renal failure; another 5% die of brain aneurysms; 10% die of heart attacks; the average life expectancy is 58. As a result of this, I cannot play contact sports, or do any heavy lifting, or get a life insurance policy, or get an individual health insurance plan, or give blood, or eat more than 1200 milligrams of salt per day, or eat more than 55 grams of protein per day, or drink any caffeine whatsoever, or take any aspirin or ibuprofen, or use any nicotine. Further, vigorous exercise 6-days per week is crucial to extending my life expectancy.

Managing all of these lifestyle changes since my diagnosis at the age of 19 has been incredibly challenging, stressful, and at times depressing. I've had an especially difficult time with dating; I struggle to find the courage to tell any young woman I've dated, "Oh, by the way, if we get married, you'll eventually have to raise our kids by yourself." Not surprisingly, I'm as single as single gets. This sort of issue really fucks with your confidence.

But you know what? I'm still happy and incredibly grateful to be alive. I have a family that loves me and that I love more than life itself; I've watched with pride and joy as four nieces and nephews have come into the world, grown, and taken on their own personalities; I have more friends than any one man needs or deserves; I have enjoyed the tutelage of countless educators and mentors; I have developed passions and interests in countless avocations; and I have found an unshakable faith in God, and a confidence that, when my day comes, He will take this heavy cross from me, and I will live with Him and those I love for eternity. There is not a single day of life for which I am not incredibly thankful. If my disease killed me tomorrow, I would still be grateful to have lived and wouldn't change a thing.

And make no mistake about it; I do not exist without my disease, and I never could have. Even if we develop the technology to repair genes in the DNA sequences of sperm or ova, there will absolutely never be a way to prospectively identify which sperm will succeed in the unfathomable lottery of human conception. Every sperm and every egg is a unique combination one's father's and mother's genes, with millions of variations in genes capable of being expressed on both sides. The possibility that any one sperm will fertilize any one egg is about 1 in 6 and a half trillion. Think about that. When your parents married, the odds of you coming into existence was about 1 in 6.5 trillion (6,500,000,000,000). Science will never be able to conclusively predict these outcomes. Never. The only conceptual possibility for "eugenics", given these scientific facts, is to either filter out unfit gametes before conception or prevent the "undesirables" from ever procreating. In other words, you prevent me from ever existing, or anyone with an alleged deficiency.

And before you jump to the suggestion that we could ultimately alter a child's genes before bad traits emerge, let us be clear about one thing - that's not eugenics; it's genetic reparation and re-squencing, and such treatment (if it ever becomes possible) should only ever be therapeutic in nature, meaning that it would be fine if used to save lives and eliminate disease or illness. For cosmetic or any other superficial reason, such treatment would reduce a child to a commodity, and would be completely morally repugnant. Life is always valuable, even if someone's parents were looking for something other than what they received, and even if society considers you undesirable. The right to be alive is inherent, as is the right to experience the joy of naturally creating and nurturing new life, flaws and all.

Life is hard, yes; it is often difficult and unfair; it causes pain and grief; it can dupe us into thinking it's not worth it and that if things were a little bit different, we'd be happy. At the end of the day, though, the joy of life is not found in being disease-free, having blue-eyes, having superior intelligence, or in looking a certain way. The joy of life is in life itself, which is to say that it's an inherent good, even though imperfect. And no matter how much we manipulate the genetic fabric that comprises us, we will always be imperfect, selfish, sinful, and weak. It is the human condition; we are flawed. And ultimately, it is grace that helps us to overcome this problem, not science experiments.

[waggy]

:D

[Snipe]

Alright, screw it. I'm dropping the gauntlet, Snipe. Look, I get your argument. You think that we should control the genes that comprise future generations of children, and thereby root out disease, stupidity, or whatever other trait society finds undesirable, be it red hair, a big nose, flat chest, small pecker, or whatever else makes people happy. We'll have our designer babies and turn children into a means to their selfish parents' end. Reproduction will effectively be reduced to utilitarianism, in which we only allow the traits that supposedly bring people the greatest subjective happiness possible. And herein lies the first problem. A third party's subjective happiness about a particular child's traits, whether physical, mental, personality, or otherwise, is an invalid basis upon which to decide a child's worthiness to be alive. Frankly, it's inhumane in that it suggests that, in an ideal world, the diseased, unintelligent, ugly, or otherwise unlikable wouldn't be allowed to come into existence at all.

Don't put words into my mouth Roach, that isn't my argument. I am not perfect. I think with current science people are going to have designer babies in the future. I don't think we can stop it. Nobody is going to pick a short Irish guy (I am much taller on the internet, and strikingly handsome). I think the issue is going to come to a head in the near future, and I haven't even contemplated all the things that could possibly go wrong. I like and enjoy the natural human bio-diversity that is on the planet.

I do not envision myself of my children as Nietzsche's Übermensch, and I have never claimed to be. I am all for the voluntary sterilization of drug addicts, prostitutes, and the mentally retarded. I am also for forcibly sterilizing people in some cases. You can argue about slippery slopes, but we have had eugenics before and I don't think it was this wide-spread Nazi disaster.

Sterilizing violent felons, chemically castrating child predators and rapists, and people that have 30 children that can't stop or pay for them. There has to be some middle ground here Roach.

Is giving the guy above, Desmond Hatchett, with all of his 30 kids he can't pay for....Is giving that guy a forced government vasectomy so wrong? Does it go against some sacred law? What about his 30 abandoned children? I don't think my position is all that radical. I am not sterilizing the ugly, gays, liberals or Dayton fans, though a few might not make the cut. I am talking about taking care of business at the margins, but those margins can add up. 30 kids is a lot for one man to sire.

Is it too much to cut off that man's ability to do that again?

[Hudson]

Is giving the guy above, Desmond Hatchett, with all of his 30 kids he can't pay for....Is giving that guy a forced government vasectomy so wrong? Does it go against some sacred law? What about his 30 abandoned children? I don't think my position is all that radical. I am not sterilizing the ugly, gays, liberals or Dayton fans, though a few might not make the cut. I am talking about taking care of business at the margins, but those margins can add up. 30 kids is a lot for one man to sire.

Is it too much to cut off that man's ability to do that again?

Yes, it is so wrong. The government should not take what they can not give. His 30 children have life, which is a great gift. I agree that he probably shouldn't have had all those kids, but a forced government vasectomy implies that he as a poor man, does not have the same right to children as a rich man.

[Roach]

Don't put words into my mouth Roach, that isn't my argument. I am not perfect. I think with current science people are going to have designer babies in the future. I don't think we can stop it. Nobody is going to pick a short Irish guy (I am much taller on the internet, and strikingly handsome). I think the issue is going to come to a head in the near future, and I haven't even contemplated all the things that could possibly go wrong. I like and enjoy the natural human bio-diversity that is on the planet.

I do not envision myself of my children as Nietzsche's Übermensch, and I have never claimed to be. I am all for the voluntary sterilization of drug addicts, prostitutes, and the mentally retarded. I am also for forcibly sterilizing people in some cases. You can argue about slippery slopes, but we have had eugenics before and I don't think it was this wide-spread Nazi disaster.

Sterilizing violent felons, chemically castrating child predators and rapists, and people that have 30 children that can't stop or pay for them. There has to be some middle ground here Roach.

Is giving the guy above, Desmond Hatchett, with all of his 30 kids he can't pay for....Is giving that guy a forced government vasectomy so wrong? Does it go against some sacred law? What about his 30 abandoned children? I don't think my position is all that radical. I am not sterilizing the ugly, gays, liberals or Dayton fans, though a few might not make the cut. I am talking about taking care of business at the margins, but those margins can add up. 30 kids is a lot for one man to sire.

Is it too much to cut off that man's ability to do that again?

If I'm putting words into your mouth, then you're not really talking about conventional eugenics. In fact, if you're not trying to control the supposed inherent quality of offspring, then you're engaged in something altogether different. If all you are suggesting, Snipe, is punitive sterilization, then I would admonish you to quit inciting everyone else's passions by claiming to promote "eugenics".

The practice of eugenics involves taking proactive steps to "improve" the genetic composition of subsequent generations. These steps, historically, have involved artificially limiting reproduction to the "genetically fit" or, more recently, creating children in petrie dishes with preselected gametes, aborting unborn children who indicate some supposed imperfection, or efforts to re-sequence a person's DNA for non-therapeutic reasons. If you do not support any of these, then you do not support eugenics.

Lastly, I do, in fact, oppose punitive sterilization ... but not because I oppose eugenics. If, through punitive sterilization, you are trying to prevent the conception of a child because his parent(s) would be negligent, then you are not trying to prevent the creation of the "genetically unfit"; rather, you are simply trying to prevent the spread of the sort of irresponsible parenthood that compromises childhood. While I find this problematic and offensive, eugenics it is not. The problem with punitive sterilization, as I see it, is that it responds to child welfare problems by suggesting that the children's existence is the heart of the problem, rather than the parents' irresponsibility. Even if a child's conception occurred through illicit or inappropriate sexual practices, his or her consequent existence is not the problem, and we should not create legal punishments that suggest otherwise.

[Roach]

What we currently do with persons born with Downs Syndrome is "mainstream" them as much as we can and allow them to reproduce. The majority of children born to a parent of Downs Syndrome also have Downs Syndrome.

Imagine the ramifications of that? If I had a Downs Syndrome child I would pay massive amounts of time and money to rear them. I could not sterilize them without their consent, and the process of sterilization for someone with Downs is costly and takes a great amount of time and effort. That is a way of discouraging it, by raising high hurdles.

Imagine if you had a kid with Downs, and the she had two or three (or seven) children also with Downs. Who is going to take care of them, especially because at some point you will die, and after that it is much harder for you to take care of the next generation.

You fear that paying people to sterilize themselves when they are drug addicts would lead to something with Downs people. I already fear that our policy with Downs is out of whack. It should be easier to voluntarily sterilize them, but it isn't. Left off the argument is if they really should have a right to have more Downs kids anyway, which is obviously Hitler by any liberal estimation. We live in a world of finite resources though, and an expansion of dependency segments like people with Downs will eventually threaten the entire social safety net if left uncurbed.

This just shows how little you know about this topic. Having all or part of an extra 21st chromosome, known as trisomy-21 or "Downs Syndrome", renders any man and most women completely sterile, and those rare women that do conceive (frequently the result of rape) with an incredibly strong likelihood of miscarriage, pre-term labor or stillbirth. Women with Downs Syndrome can almost never reproduce, and men truly never can. Of the exceptionally rare children carried to term by a mother with Downs Syndrome, only about 50% also have Downs.

Moreover, you cannot equate "retarded" with Downs Syndrome, as the latter is but one example of mental retardation, of which there are countless types and causes, some genetic and some not. Many stroke victims or those who have suffered traumatic brain injury become permanently mentally retarded. Severe cerebral palsy or spina bifida can also cause mental retardation, as can countless other diseases and natural causes, only some of which render a person infertile.

Irrespective of the impact of one's mental retardation on his or her reproductive faculties, the mental impairment neither means that he/she should not have been brought into the world nor that he/she should avoid reproducing. Their lives are every bit as valuable and rich with wonder as yours and mine. As I explained above, life is always valuable and worth living, and the prospects of some deficiency in a person's offspring does not mean that he or she should avoid bringing a child into the world. Again, despite my chronic health problems, I cherish my life as a gift.

Anecdotally, having the privelege of knowing several people with Downs among my family friends, it is impossible not to find oneself overcome with affection for them. Their mental impairment does not rob them of their capacity to love or find joy in life. In fact, their disease enhances their ablities in this regard. They form bonds and affections for others more readily than the rest of us schleps. The natural self-preservation instincts that prevent us from reflexively attaching to others is inhibited in the person with Downs. They love almost automatically, and while this often makes them vulnerable to the dangerous element of society, it also provides both their lives and those of others a richness that would be absent were they not allowed to live. And sadly, this is precisely what happens to most children with Downs these days. In 1950, roughly 30 in 10,000 children in the U.S. were born with Downs. Today, that number has fallen to roughly 5 in 10,000. A recent study showed that, among those U.S. pregnancies from 1989 to 2006 for which prenatal screening indicated a child with Downs, 93% of them were aborted. Also tragic is the fact that prenatal testing for Downs Syndrome has shown a false-positive rate of greater than 5%.

Lastly, I would mention that the cerebral impact of these impairments frequently coincides with a superhuman savant characteristic. Some of the sharpest mathematical and scientific minds in recent centuries have been shown to exhibit varying degrees of autism. Many of the world's most cherished artists have suffered from bipolar disorder or autism. Some studies of mental impairments have shown evidence of inexplicable phenomena, such as extra-sensory projection, intuitive empathy, or an accurate sense of danger about loved ones a great distance away. While it is true that a mental impairment deprives someone of many of the capacities of the average person, all too often they carry a mental acuity or intuition that we lack. So, while many might be quick to label the mentally retarded as having a life of lesser quality and value, in formally adopting this outlook in our quest for perfection, we dispense with a great deal of good.

[boozehound]

Yes, it is so wrong. The government should not take what they can not give. His 30 children have life, which is a great gift. I agree that he probably shouldn't have had all those kids, but a forced government vasectomy implies that he as a poor man, does not have the same right to children as a rich man.

He doesn't. Why should he have the right to have 30 kids that the taxpayers must support? If even half the people had this mentality our society would completely collapse. I don't believe that anyone has the 'right' to have excessive amounts of children that they cannot in any way support. I don't have the 'right' to choose not to pay for his 30 illegitimate kids.

[paulxu]

Snipe, the real "retarded" are naturally infertile.

That may be true for Downs Syndrome males, but they are only part of the group. I don't think all the "real" retarded people are sterile.

[xudash]

He doesn't. Why should he have the right to have 30 kids that the taxpayers must support? If even half the people had this mentality our society would completely collapse. I don't believe that anyone has the 'right' to have excessive amounts of children that they cannot in any way support. I don't have the 'right' to choose not to pay for his 30 illegitimate kids.

Which is to say he has a right and obligation to be a responsible citizen, if he chooses to accept the obligation, which he obviously hasn't.

I have no time or compassion for someone who brings a life into this world on an irresponsible basis.

[Roach]

That may be true for Downs Syndrome males, but they are only part of the group. I don't think all the "real" retarded people are sterile.

You're correct, and I clarified this point in my subsequent post. However, a fertile woman with Downs is about as common as a fertile mule.

[Roach]

I have no time or compassion for someone who brings a life into this world on an irresponsible basis.

Nor I, but I have plenty of time and compassion for his children, who need as much care and concern as it takes from the rest of us to make up for their absentee father. Do I believe welfare is the answer? No. I believe the answer is compassion and charity.

[Hudson]

He doesn't. Why should he have the right to have 30 kids that the taxpayers must support? If even half the people had this mentality our society would completely collapse. I don't believe that anyone has the 'right' to have excessive amounts of children that they cannot in any way support. I don't have the 'right' to choose not to pay for his 30 illegitimate kids.

It's called trust in humanity. Trust that an idiot like this is the exception, not the rule. Trust that humans and Americans would recognize the harm they are imposing on their children by having so many. Come to think of it, there are countries that control the amount of children a parent can have, China and North Korea. You really want to add the United States to that list?

Also I agree that we shouldn't have to support such an idiot, but bringing in a guy to be neutered like a dog is plain wrong.

[LadyMuskie]

It's called trust in humanity. Trust that an idiot like this is the exception, not the rule. Trust that humans and Americans would recognize the harm they are imposing on their children by having so many. Come to think of it, there are countries that control the amount of children a parent can have, China and North Korea. You really want to add the United States to that list?

Also I agree that we shouldn't have to support such an idiot, but bringing in a guy to be neutered like a dog is plain wrong.

I agree with this. It sucks that some people have no self worth or self control, but in a republic like ours, you take the good with the bad. To start forcing vasectomies or hysterectomies on people like the aforementioned man is a very slippery slope. It starts because one guy can't keep it in his pants and ends with someone deciding that everyone with blue eyes or red hair or freckles or a history of heart disease in the family needs to go.

I feel bad for this guy's kids because none of this is their fault. They didn't ask to have such a jackass for a dad. So, we take care of them because we can and we try to give them enough knowledge so that they choose a different path than their father. Sometimes we can't just say that we're Christians, but we have to actually act like it. Forcing sterilization on people is just plain wrong, no matter how many children he has produced and for whom he can't provide.

[GoMuskies]

It's called trust in humanity.

Yeah, I don't have that. I'm pretty sure the evidence weighs heavily on my side.

[Hudson]

Yeah, I don't have that. I'm pretty sure the evidence weighs heavily on my side.

I have it, because I understand that there are millions of other people in this country who take their children seriously. They just don't get press, the idiots do.

[Snipe]

Is giving the guy above, Desmond Hatchett, with all of his 30 kids he can't pay for....Is giving that guy a forced government vasectomy so wrong? Does it go against some sacred law? What about his 30 abandoned children? I don't think my position is all that radical. I am not sterilizing the ugly, gays, liberals or Dayton fans, though a few might not make the cut. I am talking about taking care of business at the margins, but those margins can add up. 30 kids is a lot for one man to sire.

Is it too much to cut off that man's ability to do that again?


Yes, it is so wrong. The government should not take what they can not give. His 30 children have life, which is a great gift. I agree that he probably shouldn't have had all those kids, but a forced government vasectomy implies that he as a poor man, does not have the same right to children as a rich man.

"The government should not take what they cannot give" could also be an argument against incarceration. That is just claptrap.

Your arguments against sterilization seem to be similar to those against abortion. But we aren't killing his children, and I would not advocate that. I think it is a bad idea if he has any more or them. I would like to definitively end this process. You think that he shouldn't have those kids, but stop short of any concrete measure to stop him.

As for his right to have 30 children while being poor, what about my rights and the rights of my children. I already have to pay for idiots like this, and my two children will have to pay for his 30 children. I bet he has a lot more grandkids than I do, and my grandkids will have to shoulder that burden as well. At some point it is a numbers game, and when the idiot breeders like this guy have more offspring than the capable, it is called dysgenic fertility. Which means our current practice isn't Eugenics, it is Dysgenics. Good luck with that long term pal. I don't think it ends well.



He doesn't. Why should he have the right to have 30 kids that the taxpayers must support? If even half the people had this mentality our society would completely collapse. I don't believe that anyone has the 'right' to have excessive amounts of children that they cannot in any way support. I don't have the 'right' to choose not to pay for his 30 illegitimate kids.

I agree with your points but I have one quibble. I don't think it would take even close to half our population to have that mentality for society to collapse.

Here is a youtube video of Desmond Hatchett (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZk1y8iaho) last time he went to court. At that point he only had 21 children. He said he didn't intend on having that many, but it happened. Now three years later he has 9 more. And he claims the women knew the deal, and they interviewed one of his baby momas. They didn't show her face, hilarious, like she is a rape victim or something. She said "It isn't about the parents, it is about the children". Makes me feel all Bill Clinton warm on the inside, because I love to do it for the children. Everything is for the children! These wonderful people have given us all the tremendous gift of life! Who can deny that?

Here is a video of Angel Adams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E&feature=related), who has a big brood from multiple partners as well.

An Angry Angel Adams says this on the video:

"SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PAY FOR ALL MY CHILDREN
AND MY AND GARY, ALL OUR SUFFERING
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND THEY NEED TO PAY"

At one point her children were taken away because she couldn't care for them, and she went 10 months without voluntarily even visiting them.

Watch as her friend says that "When the state come in and the Judge and DCF, they came in and brought a lot of mess and you know and different allegations against her but before then Angel was doing great on her own". Maybe our enemy is the State! Maybe Angel Adams is a libertarian at heart and she would be just fine on her own, at least as long as "SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PAY FOR ALL MY CHILDREN!".

And check out the lawyer for "Uncle Jobe", who apparently was going to offer them housing. "When they got there the mother just stood there and offered no assistance". I don't think they are talking financial assistance. I think she just showed up with here brood and let them trash the place while she had a drink or something. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PAY FOR ALL MY CHILDREN! That is basically the same argument that Desmond Hatchett, father of 30 is saying to the court. He can't afford it, but "SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PAY FOR ALL MY CHILDREN!".

The judge was concerned with all her children, and her confined living space and speculated that the children were probably witnessing men coming over and having intercourse with their mother. Really. Who would have thought. I am aghast. What a great environment. When I was young just the visual of my parents doing the deed would have been unsettling, but for young kids who don't even know their father, imagine watching some strange man mount mother while she barks and screams like an animal. I think it is great. All cultures are equal, and I love this sort of multiculturalism. You do know that diversity is strength! I read that somewhere.



Which is to say he has a right and obligation to be a responsible citizen, if he chooses to accept the obligation, which he obviously hasn't.

I have no time or compassion for someone who brings a life into this world on an irresponsible basis.

Props to you dash. I have no compassion for these people either, other than the fact that they are probably retarded, and should have been guided better by the responsible people. I have compassion for that. We never should have let Angel Adams and Desmond Hatchett have all of those kids. They admit that they can't care for them, at least not without your tax money transfusions. We have failed them in a way by letting it get this far.


It's called trust in humanity. Trust that an idiot like this is the exception, not the rule. Trust that humans and Americans would recognize the harm they are imposing on their children by having so many. Come to think of it, there are countries that control the amount of children a parent can have, China and North Korea. You really want to add the United States to that list?

Also I agree that we shouldn't have to support such an idiot, but bringing in a guy to be neutered like a dog is plain wrong.

I have already decried China's One-Child policy in this and other threads. It is bad. For the record, I don't endorse the Nazis, at least not on everything (the French had it coming). As for North Korea, I neither know or care. They are one of many barbaric civilizations and they are more representative of the norm than we are in human history.

You talk about trust in humanity. In the last century more than 100 million people were killed by their own governments. Trust in humanity? I admire your optimism, but optimism is for cowards that can't face the truth. We are much worse than you think we are, and the natural state of man is nothing to make light of.

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan talked about the natural state of man as in a natural state of war, and described life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Has that changed much? For us here in America, for sure, but for the 100 million plus that were killed by their own governments just in the last century, I don't think he was off track. Still relevant today in fact.

The history of humanity is quite dismal if you care to delve into it a bit. If I said that slavery was a great advancement in human rights people would think that is crazy. But before slavery they just killed everyone. They just wanted the land and less mouths to feed. At one point somebody said, lets at least keep the productive masons and attractive women, and slavery started. Then they thought of other ways they could put people to use. The institution of Slavery itself was a huge advancement of human rights, because it was much better to be alive then to be dead.

[Kahns Krazy]

One guy having thirty children he can't pay for is no more of a societal burden than 30 guys having one child they can't pay for. I can't see how a societal convention would be wrtten that wouldn't ultimately catch someone up in a forced sterilazation scenario. What if I have 4 children, then my wife leaves me. After that, I am injured in an accident and can no longer work. I lose the ability to pay for my children. Should I also be sterilized on top of that? How many children is too many? Who gets to decide?

I'm against mandatory sterilization. I'm also against bribing those with questionable decision making skills, including those with addictions and mental impairments. I would support publicly funded, truly voluntary sterilizations for at-risk people, but not if they are making money for it.

[Snipe]

I agree with this. It sucks that some people have no self worth or self control, but in a republic like ours, you take the good with the bad. To start forcing vasectomies or hysterectomies on people like the aforementioned man is a very slippery slope. It starts because one guy can't keep it in his pants and ends with someone deciding that everyone with blue eyes or red hair or freckles or a history of heart disease in the family needs to go.

I feel bad for this guy's kids because none of this is their fault. They didn't ask to have such a jackass for a dad. So, we take care of them because we can and we try to give them enough knowledge so that they choose a different path than their father. Sometimes we can't just say that we're Christians, but we have to actually act like it. Forcing sterilization on people is just plain wrong, no matter how many children he has produced and for whom he can't provide.

Slippery slope? What is not a slippery slope? Seriously. Can't every law be a slippery slope?

Why should we let the government lock people up in prisons? isn't that a slippery slope? If not, why not? Should we abolish prisons? If not, have we dealt with the slippery slope? It appears that we have, even though we all know innocent people have been incarcerated.

We have eugenics laws on the book right now Lady. You aren't allowed to marry your brother or your Uncle. That is Eugenics. Where is the slippery slope in that? Should we get rid of those laws because they are just a slippery slope? What about the alternative? In the rest of the world consanguineous marriages result in retardation and genetic defects that hold other cultures back. Western cultures don't suffer from that, because we outlawed incest. It is against our social mores, and it is codified into law. But who is the government to tell you not to mate with your brother, and why is that not a slippery slope to you? Is it just common sense? Maybe cutting off some derelict from having more than 30 children might be common sense too.

Should you be allowed to mate with your relatives? This happens all over the world, and it is the reason why many cultures are "clan based". It is because they are inbred and all actually related by blood, sometimes very intimately. That is why it is hard to break those cultures to our values in my opinion, at least sometimes. They see it as in-group and out-group and a matter of blood, and blood is thicker than water as they say.

Can we have some rules without slippery slopes?

What if we sterilized pedophiles? We do that already with chemical castration. Is that wrong? Is that a slippery slope? Will we be burning Jews next? What about violent criminals, rapists, and murderers? I want them sterilized. Why not is the better question. That doesn't mean I have a desire for Jewish lampshades. No slippery slope there for me.

If you can't pay for your thirty children, then you should be sterilized.

China sterilizes everyone. I am not advocating that. This country had ongoing eugenics programs for most of the last century, and we never did that, despite your slippery slope. We should be able to make some rules, and it is up to us to make them while we still have some semblance of Western Civilization.

[Snipe]

It's called trust in humanity.


Yeah, I don't have that. I'm pretty sure the evidence weighs heavily on my side.

You tend to say it in fewer characters than I do.

I would agree with your evidence.

[Roach]

But before slavery they just killed everyone. They just wanted the land and less mouths to feed. At one point somebody said, lets at least keep the productive masons and attractive women, and slavery started. Then they thought of other ways they could put people to use. The institution of Slavery itself was a huge advancement of human rights, because it was much better to be alive then to be dead.

Please enlighten me, Snipe; when was this era "before slavery"? Was it before or after Hobbes' hypothetical "natural state of man"? It must have been before, right? The very concept seems perfectly antithetical to the discovery of "social contract," doesn't it? SMH ...

The notion that slavery was something man "discovered" at some point in human history is perfectly absurd. Without even the slightest bit of ingenuity, any oversized, meathead, caveman with a peanut-brain and a club would have recognized the personal benefit to be derived by physically forcing his fellow cave-dwellers to do his bidding. Slavery has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and it has never been anything other than a wholesale scourge, not some social advancement.

Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that slavery was the natural progression away from would-be murders. So, if Europeans hadn't undertaken the African slave trade, they would have simply invaded West Africa to indiscriminately kill the would-be slaves instead?

When you say things like this, Snipe, I'm often at a loss as to whether your opinions are really this warped or whether you're simply fucking with us. I sincerely hope it's the latter.

On second thought, though, it's probably neither. This latest silly post of yours is most likely simple misdirection. After I held your feet to the fire on your supposed defense of eugenics, rather than respond to my points, you ignore my posts and instead fire off a diatribe about how slavery was a positive step toward recognizing human rights. What will you tell us next? That the development of heroin was a positive step toward a drug free America?

[Hudson]

"The government should not take what they cannot give" could also be an argument against incarceration. That is just claptrap.

Your arguments against sterilization seem to be similar to those against abortion. But we aren't killing his children, and I would not advocate that. I think it is a bad idea if he has any more or them. I would like to definitively end this process. You think that he shouldn't have those kids, but stop short of any concrete measure to stop him.

As for his right to have 30 children while being poor, what about my rights and the rights of my children. I already have to pay for idiots like this, and my two children will have to pay for his 30 children. I bet he has a lot more grandkids than I do, and my grandkids will have to shoulder that burden as well. At some point it is a numbers game, and when the idiot breeders like this guy have more offspring than the capable, it is called dysgenic fertility. Which means our current practice isn't Eugenics, it is Dysgenics. Good luck with that long term pal. I don't think it ends well.

It is not an argument against incarceration because you can be let out of jail. However it is an argument against the Death Penalty. To me a democratic government is nothing more than a bunch of people who talk issues out and make decisions off of them. Which works for basic laws, but not on issues of life. As we all know very well governments and people can easily be wrong.

I think you are looking at this as we are helping him, when we are really helping the children, who are completely innocent in all of this. You have also overlooked half of his situation, and those are the mothers. The mothers have a say in how many kids he has, and they have failed. I trust the average woman would have a bit more brain than to copulate with this imbecile. It is crazy for a man to have 30 children, it is just as crazy for a woman to want to have child 29 or 30 with him.

Here's how I solve the problem. Education. We can all agree this guy is a moron. Why is he a moron? Because of outside influences overtaking a sound education. Because some pop culture makes it seem cool to have sex and not care. We need better and more honest sex-ed, and better education in general. I'm sure not too many Xavier grads have had 30 something children they can not support. That's because we are smart, and educated, that is the difference, or better yet the gap we need to fill.

To me the measures you want to take are purely reactive when they need to be proactive. The kids were born, its over, nothing we can do about it but suck it up and do the right thing. Now you start worrying about the next moron who decides its cool to have 30 kids. Under your plan a government would say something to the likes of stereotyping, figure out who is most likely to have 30 kids and snip 'em. This is the slippery slope LadyMuskie is talking about. Government forced vasectomies will solve nothing.

[Hudson]

I have already decried China's One-Child policy in this and other threads. It is bad. For the record, I don't endorse the Nazis, at least not on everything (the French had it coming). As for North Korea, I neither know or care. They are one of many barbaric civilizations and they are more representative of the norm than we are in human history.

You talk about trust in humanity. In the last century more than 100 million people were killed by their own governments. Trust in humanity? I admire your optimism, but optimism is for cowards that can't face the truth. We are much worse than you think we are, and the natural state of man is nothing to make light of.

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan talked about the natural state of man as in a natural state of war, and described life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Has that changed much? For us here in America, for sure, but for the 100 million plus that were killed by their own governments just in the last century, I don't think he was off track. Still relevant today in fact.

The history of humanity is quite dismal if you care to delve into it a bit. If I said that slavery was a great advancement in human rights people would think that is crazy. But before slavery they just killed everyone. They just wanted the land and less mouths to feed. At one point somebody said, lets at least keep the productive masons and attractive women, and slavery started. Then they thought of other ways they could put people to use. The institution of Slavery itself was a huge advancement of human rights, because it was much better to be alive then to be dead.

Accepting the "truth" is truly cowardice. I have faith in humanity, because citizen killing nations of the past have been stopped, because I'm not blue eyed and blonde haired like Hitler wanted me to be, because my Jewish neighbor exists, and because the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't end with a dropped bomb, and jelly filled donuts.

I respect your posts so far but your line "before slavery they just killed everyone" is just ridiculous in so many ways. If true, how is that an advancement in human rights? That people realized they needed other people, so they kept them alive and fed to the point where they could be used for labor. It's not like they said, "Hey we should stop killing these people its wrong." No they probably were thinking, "Crap we need someone to do this work for us."

[Snipe]

One guy having thirty children he can't pay for is no more of a societal burden than 30 guys having one child they can't pay for.

I would argue that it is 30 times different. I just did that math myself. Easier for one guy to be a father and support one child than 30. Easier for him to help out, and if he doesn't help out any pays child support, making minimum wage he could support one child much easier than 30. I see a vast difference.


I can't see how a societal convention would be wrtten that wouldn't ultimately catch someone up in a forced sterilazation scenario.

I don't see society holding a convention, but we could pass a law. Say a law like this:

If you have a child and have no means to support it, we will give you public assistance. The caveat is that you need to go on deprova or some such other birth control so that you do not have more children while you are unable to pay for them. If you have another child and are unable to pay for them, you will be cut off from state assistance. You are allowed one child "on the state", but if you voluntarily choose to have more children you are off the public dole. This would not be forced sterilization though, it would be completely voluntary. People would be able to have as many children as they want, they would just no longer be wards of the taxpayer and the state.

We wouldn't have to hold a convention for that, all we would have to do is pass a law. I would support that law, and it wouldn't forcibly sterilize anyone.



What if I have 4 children, then my wife leaves me. After that, I am injured in an accident and can no longer work. I lose the ability to pay for my children. Should I also be sterilized on top of that?

I don't think you should be sterilized then.


How many children is too many? Who gets to decide?

We get to decide, just like we get to decide all the laws. Right now we get to decide, and their is no limit to your children, even if you are on the public dole. Who decided that I have to pay for them? I didn't have a say in that. We did. We decide and always have in this American democracy. Don't like a law? We can change that. Who did you think was going to get to decide? Who gets to decide that incest was wrong? We did. Who gets to decide that murder is wrong. We did.

It is really quite simple.


I'm against mandatory sterilization. I'm also against bribing those with questionable decision making skills, including those with addictions and mental impairments. I would support publicly funded, truly voluntary sterilizations for at-risk people, but not if they are making money for it.

I don't agree with you. You are against chemically castrating pedophiles, and most people from what I can tell support that. I think certain classes of criminals have forfeited their rights. What about mental age of consent laws for the retarded? We have them and I support them. They can't even give consent, which means that sex to them is rape, and then they have kids that they can't possibly rear? Thank God we have the money for that, just borrow more from the Chinese. Seems like a winning strategy.

I don't think a proliferation of the retarded is good for society, and again, I would like to say that in my opinion this is mainly a numbers game.

In America, the definition of mentally retarded is an IQ of 70. People with those IQs and below don't do very well in our system, they tend to be poor. Their is a correlation between low IQ and crime. It isn't in our best interests to have more and more of them. What is the IQ of the guy who just had 30 kids and still works for minimum wage at the age of 33? It can't be much higher if he isn't statistically retarded. And what about the IQ of the women who would want to bear children to such a man? I can't say I have trust in their decision making process or cognitive abilities.

IQ And The Wealth of Nations (http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X) was a book by Dr. Richard Lynn and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen. The book shows that their is a positive correlation between national income and average national intelligence quotient. The intelligence of a nation will affect your standard of living. That seems to be common sense.

Let's pick another country for comparison, say maybe Senegal.

Some quick facts about Senegal.

GDP Per Capita $1,000
GDP P/C Ranking: 154 out of a possible 189 (CIA Factbook)

94% Muslim (CIA Factbook)

National IQ Average 66
National IQ Rank 177 out out of 189 (IQ and the Wealth of Nations)

As you can tell by the per capita GDP, Senegal is one of the poorest nations in the world, located in the bottom quintile. That is crushing poverty.

As you can tell from the religious census, Senegal is a Muslim country. Muslim cultures are quite backward and poor. The worst thing about them (in my opinion) is the inbreeding, because they don't possess our culture or our eugenics laws that forbid incest. Women aren’t allowed to go out in public alone, they must be with a male relative. Since guys only get to know and meet women that they are related two, they usually end up breeding with them. And the Prophet Mohamed did that too with his cousin, so inbreeding is hunky dory from a religious standpoint. But inbreeding is bad for humans. All those recessive genes and genetic flaws and diseases start coming out when your family tree doesn’t branch. And the inbred genetic factor leads to my next point.

Senegal has one of the lowest average national IQs in the entire world at 66. To put that in perspective, in the United States and IQ of 70 is borderline retarded. In Senegal, an IQ of 70 is above average.

They still have people living in dung huts in Senegal. People in the Peace Corps go there to work with them. Those people literally live in shit-holes. Senegal is full of dirt poor, inbred retarded people, some of whom literally live in dung huts. Good luck with that! I see a bright future there!

But when it comes to population growth rate Senegal is ranked 26th in the world. That is top tier. So we know those poor inbred retarded people at least know how to do one thing (other than take international aid).

I can't see anything possibly going wrong now! The future is bright!

[Snipe]

It is not an argument against incarceration because you can be let out of jail. However it is an argument against the Death Penalty. To me a democratic government is nothing more than a bunch of people who talk issues out and make decisions off of them. Which works for basic laws, but not on issues of life. As we all know very well governments and people can easily be wrong.

I think you are looking at this as we are helping him, when we are really helping the children, who are completely innocent in all of this. You have also overlooked half of his situation, and those are the mothers. The mothers have a say in how many kids he has, and they have failed. I trust the average woman would have a bit more brain than to copulate with this imbecile. It is crazy for a man to have 30 children, it is just as crazy for a woman to want to have child 29 or 30 with him.

Here's how I solve the problem. Education. We can all agree this guy is a moron. Why is he a moron? Because of outside influences overtaking a sound education. Because some pop culture makes it seem cool to have sex and not care. We need better and more honest sex-ed, and better education in general. I'm sure not too many Xavier grads have had 30 something children they can not support. That's because we are smart, and educated, that is the difference, or better yet the gap we need to fill.

To me the measures you want to take are purely reactive when they need to be proactive. The kids were born, its over, nothing we can do about it but suck it up and do the right thing. Now you start worrying about the next moron who decides its cool to have 30 kids. Under your plan a government would say something to the likes of stereotyping, figure out who is most likely to have 30 kids and snip 'em. This is the slippery slope LadyMuskie is talking about. Government forced vasectomies will solve nothing.

I agree that he is a moron, just not on why he is a moron. What if he is a moron because he was born that way, and it has nothing to do with outside influences? Maybe it is genetic? Isn't that a possibility? Maybe we can't all be saved!

Maybe he is just retarded, or has a really low IQ. Maybe those women are retarded, or have really low IQs. Maybe education wouldn't do any good.

Intelligence is heritable. You get it from your parents. I bet many of his kids are really fucking stupid too. I think it is a safe bet. My kids will be paying for them.

Not all problems have solutions, at least not good solutions. The thought that with just the right education he and his baby momas would be all living an upper=middle class life is laughable on the face of it to me. Hehehe. If only he would have listened to the liberal dogma!

Right. Have fun with that. Good luck.

[Snipe]

Please enlighten me, Snipe; when was this era "before slavery"? Was it before or after Hobbes' hypothetical "natural state of man"? It must have been before, right? The very concept seems perfectly antithetical to the discovery of "social contract," doesn't it? SMH ...

The notion that slavery was something man "discovered" at some point in human history is perfectly absurd. Without even the slightest bit of ingenuity, any oversized, meathead, caveman with a peanut-brain and a club would have recognized the personal benefit to be derived by physically forcing his fellow cave-dwellers to do his bidding. Slavery has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and it has never been anything other than a wholesale scourge, not some social advancement.

Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that slavery was the natural progression away from would-be murders. So, if Europeans hadn't undertaken the African slave trade, they would have simply invaded West Africa to indiscriminately kill the would-be slaves instead?



For the record I am not talking about Europeans and the African Slave trade. I got the idea from a book entitled: Advance to Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare from Sarajevo to Hiroshima (http://www.amazon.com/Advance-Barbarism-Development-Sarajevo-Hiroshima/dp/0939484455) by F.J.P. Veale, a book that I would recommend. In it he gave a history of human warfare since the beginning of time. In the first wars they did not take slaves, the simply slaughtered everyone. Wars were genocidal affair for land, resources and food, and a prisoner was just another mouth to feed. We have come a long way since then.

If you want, I will see if I can find the relevant passages.


Accepting the "truth" is truly cowardice. I have faith in humanity, because citizen killing nations of the past have been stopped, because I'm not blue eyed and blonde haired like Hitler wanted me to be, because my Jewish neighbor exists, and because the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't end with a dropped bomb, and jelly filled donuts.

I respect your posts so far but your line "before slavery they just killed everyone" is just ridiculous in so many ways. If true, how is that an advancement in human rights? That people realized they needed other people, so they kept them alive and fed to the point where they could be used for labor. It's not like they said, "Hey we should stop killing these people its wrong." No they probably were thinking, "Crap we need someone to do this work for us."

Because being a slave is better than being dead. The Mongol Hordes took the best craftsmen and the attractive child bearing women with them and killed everyone else. If was better for those that survived, if you view being alive in bondage as being better than death. I think it is better to be alive.

Also, "citizen killing nations" haven't exactly stopped chief, not now, not ever. Plenty of death and destruction is going on in the world right now.

[paulxu]

Sometimes we can't just say that we're Christians, but we have to actually act like it.

Now there's a novel idea! However, from reading a lot of posts on a number of issues here, it appears the former is winning...handily.


Muslim cultures are quite backward and poor.

Unless of course you have a LOT of oil (like Saudi Arabia or one of the Emirates), then things are not quite so straightforward as that.

[Roach]

I[t] was better for those that survived, if you view being alive in bondage as being better than death. I think it is better to be alive.

Wait, though, Snipe. Shouldn't you attach a caveat to that statement? "It think is is better to be alive, but only if you are one of the genetically fit."

[blobfan]

I'm disappointed this thread went awry. I'd be interested in a discussion about the original topic: should you pay people to voluntarily participate in a birth control or sterilization program. I can see where it would make some people uncomfortable but why is it wrong? Keep in mind this is an independent group doing this, not the government.

[Roach]

I'm disappointed this thread went awry. I'd be interested in a discussion about the original topic: should you pay people to voluntarily participate in a birth control or sterilization program. I can see where it would make some people uncomfortable but why is it wrong? Keep in mind this is an independent group doing this, not the government.

It's definitely a different question than whether the government can rightly force sterilizations upon people, or whether sterilization is, itself, immoral. In a nutshell, here are my thoughts - Although (1) I think sterilization is immoral (for reasons I explained in earlier posts); (2) I do not believe that it rises to such a level of moral gravity that the law must prohibit it; (3) consequently, although I find the practice exploitative, I do not believe we should prohibit people from encouraging sterilizations, whether through financial incentives or otherwise.

I've already addressed point (1) and really have nothing more to add to it.

As for point (2), while I believe sterilization is immoral, I do not believe it so gravely immoral that it absolutely must be illegal (though I certainly wouldn't mind if it were). In terms of moral / legal philosophy, I tend to follow the framework formulated by Aquinas, who held that while "there is no vice which the law cannot proscribe," (A Treatise on the Law) proscribing all vices completely removes from man the freedom to choose the good, which largely prevents him from developing virtue. Additionally, overly aggressive legal regimes cause cause man to mistake repression for false law. Effectively, if we rendered every immoral act illegal, it would create confusion about what is and what is not immoral, leading to civil unrest about laws which, although repressive, actually reflect moral truth. If human history (and especially the American variant) is any indication, overly restrictive law leads to revolution. The basic thrust of this is that the law must always protect some freedom of individual conscience. Accordingly, prudential judgment must always be considered when determining which vices should be illegal. I simply don't believe that sterilization must be one of them. To the extent birth control does not function as an abortifacient (a topic about which I am not qualified to speak), I would put it into the same category. Again, I believe one can personally oppose both sterilization and contraception on purely secular grounds (and I do), but in so doing, one need not believe they must be illegal.

On point (3), the issue becomes a lot more complicated. Many vices which remain legal, such as indiscriminate sex, become illegal when we commodify them as financial transactions. Prostitution is illegal in all but 8 counties in the United States, which reflects our majority view that commodifying certain legal vices, especially ones involving the casual indulgence of something typically viewed as sacred in character (sex/reproduction), is sufficiently morally repugnant such that society prefers its prohibition. A large part of me wants to view pay-for-sterilization in much the same way; I truly find it morally repugnant in that it seeks to place a price tag on a person's ability to procreate, something which is invaluable and truly sacred, even in a secular sense. At the same time, there is a meaningful distinction between prostitution and the financial incentivizing of sterilization. Prostitution is the commodification of something sacred for purely recreational, self-indulgent purposes. Aside from its inherent disrespect for the beauty of human intimacy and procreation, it is also entirely narcissistic and hedonistic, human weaknesses from which the law should encourage us to steer clear. Conversely, the individuals paying for others' sterilization, although in my mind terribly misguided, probably have subjectively good intentions. Accordingly, because the underlying vice (sterilization) is not one which I feel the law must prohibit, and because those incentivizing it are often trying to help both society and those they hope to sterilize, I can tolerate its legality. However, I still find the practice inhumane, an affront to basic human dignity, and worthy of steadfast opposition. I would strongly urge anyone not to be party to an organized effort to sterilize people.

[Roach]

Appropos of our discussion about children with Downs Syndrome.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/bristolpalin/files/2012/05/Eightpercent.png

Definitely makes the idea of eugenics disgusting in my mind.

[X-band '01]

Excellent find on that pic Roach.

[xudash]

Nor I, but I have plenty of time and compassion for his children, who need as much care and concern as it takes from the rest of us to make up for their absentee father. Do I believe welfare is the answer? No. I believe the answer is compassion and charity.

I've been on the Board of Trustees of Daniel for almost 10 years now. I'll be made Chairman of the BoT this October. Daniel is the oldest child services agency in the State of Florida. It's been in existence for 128 years.

I only put that out there to let you know that I deeply care for these children as well. That's what we're all about at Daniel. In virtually all cases, we're helping to provide these children an opportunity to get to a meaningful happy life.

Some parents are naive and careless; they have children, though it was not their intent to take their own lives down that road. We know what that challenge looks like.

Some parents run into severe problems due to economic forces.

Then you have the other end of the spectrum, which is comprised of utterly useless scum who I hope burn in hell.

I've personally witnessed the product of drug and physical abuse and abject neglect.

What gives me hope is that many of our kids find a way to respond once they trust the support infrastructure. Once they know it's sincere and safe, they have an opportunity to begin to formulate what they want to do, with many of them wanting to help others themselves.

I get very mad at times when I see the irresponsibility coupled with absolutely no remorse.

I have hope for humanity when I see a child that has come from that kind of background who is preparing to go to college and with a specific goal for their lives in mind.

Most of us here are Christians. Most of us are Catholics.

You don't have to be to appreciate the parable about Jesus teaching people to fish, rather than giving them fish. We need to put resources into helping those people who need help and who desire to lead a good life; who desire to take care and develop their children. Take it out of the prison budget.

I won't mention here what I would like to see happen to the scum, other than to govern my thoughts by noting that I understand we're all God's children. I would include all worthless derelicts on a flight to that island I mentioned in another thread.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm disappointed this thread went awry. I'd be interested in a discussion about the original topic: should you pay people to voluntarily participate in a birth control or sterilization program. I can see where it would make some people uncomfortable but why is it wrong? Keep in mind this is an independent group doing this, not the government.

A simple argument would be that if you need to pay people to do it, it is not voluntary. Add in the fact that the target market is of questionable decision making capability (you lawyers can correct me, but isn't intoxication a defense to a legal contract?), and it goes beyond uncomfortable.

The money makes it different. I can have sex with a woman voluntarily. I can even have sex with a woman who happens to be a prostitute voluntarily if no money changes hands. However, I can not give a woman money to have sex with me, even if she consents to the act voluntarily.

[sweet16]

However, I can not give a woman money to have sex with me, even if she consents to the act voluntarily.

You're not married are you?

[Snipe]

A simple argument would be that if you need to pay people to do it, it is not voluntary. Add in the fact that the target market is of questionable decision making capability (you lawyers can correct me, but isn't intoxication a defense to a legal contract?), and it goes beyond uncomfortable.

The money makes it different. I can have sex with a woman voluntarily. I can even have sex with a woman who happens to be a prostitute voluntarily if no money changes hands. However, I can not give a woman money to have sex with me, even if she consents to the act voluntarily.

Do people have free will? Do you? Some intelligent people along the way have made arguments that you do not. You get paid to go to your job. Are you free? If you got paid to do it, as you said, it is not voluntary.

I think that is mostly hogwash. I think you are free to quit that job. I believe in free will, but I do think those others guys have a point. The more I live my life, the more encumbered I am by transactions and choices, but they are choices of my own making. At some point I am a slave to them in some sense. But we all are, and that doesn't negate free choice. You pay your money and you take your chances.

[boozehound]

Wait, though, Snipe. Shouldn't you attach a caveat to that statement? "It think is is better to be alive, but only if you are one of the genetically fit."

Here's the problem I have with where we are headed as a society:

We have basically completely eliminated natural selection in any and all forms at this point, due to a large part in excessive amounts of state-funded aid being doled out to various people. For thousands and thousands of years we have continued to exist and thrive as a society as a direct benefit of natural selection. The people who were best equipped to survive, survived and reproduced. The people who were genetically ill-equipped to survive died off.

We have now come to a point as a civilized society where we aren't willing to let people that natural selection says 'should' starve, starve to death. We redistribute wealth from those who are achieve success to those who are either unwilling or unable to achieve success. To a degree that is OK. I am in favor of some kind of safety net for people, versus just letting the poor starve and die.

The problem comes when the people whose genetics we actually want being passed on are having 1 or 2 kids while the people whose genetics we don't want being passed on are having 4, 5, or even 30 kids.

This is the where Snipe's theory on 'forced' birth control or sterilization for people on welfare comes in to play. People on welfare have demonstrated that they cannot support themselves. They generally are not the best and brightest. They are having the most kids though. Sometimes they even benefit financially from having more kids. They actually improve their overall financial situation by having more kids that they cannot afford. What do they care? They aren't paying for them.

Frankly I think it is almost insulting to anybody who has ever sat down with their spouse and tried to figure out how many kids they could 'afford' to have. I know a lot of people who stopped at 2 kids instead of 3 or 4 because they didn't feel they could afford 3 or 4 kids. The funny thing about that is that they really could afford 3 or 4 kids in most cases. You know who isn't worried about whether or not he can afford to have another kid? Desmond Hatchett.

That is why I am in favor of 'forced' or 'coerced' sterilization or at a minimum 'forced' birth control for people on government assistance. If the idiots of society start reproducing much faster than the functioning members of society we are going to be screwed in a generation or two.

[Roach]

Here's the problem I have with where we are headed as a society:

We have basically completely eliminated natural selection in any and all forms at this point, due to a large part in excessive amounts of state-funded aid being doled out to various people. For thousands and thousands of years we have continued to exist and thrive as a society as a direct benefit of natural selection. The people who were best equipped to survive, survived and reproduced. The people who were genetically ill-equipped to survive died off.

We have now come to a point as a civilized society where we aren't willing to let people that natural selection says 'should' starve, starve to death. We redistribute wealth from those who are achieve success to those who are either unwilling or unable to achieve success. To a degree that is OK. I am in favor of some kind of safety net for people, versus just letting the poor starve and die.

The problem comes when the people whose genetics we actually want being passed on are having 1 or 2 kids while the people whose genetics we don't want being passed on are having 4, 5, or even 30 kids.

This is the where Snipe's theory on 'forced' birth control or sterilization for people on welfare comes in to play. People on welfare have demonstrated that they cannot support themselves. They generally are not the best and brightest. They are having the most kids though. Sometimes they even benefit financially from having more kids. They actually improve their overall financial situation by having more kids that they cannot afford. What do they care? They aren't paying for them.

Frankly I think it is almost insulting to anybody who has ever sat down with their spouse and tried to figure out how many kids they could 'afford' to have. I know a lot of people who stopped at 2 kids instead of 3 or 4 because they didn't feel they could afford 3 or 4 kids. The funny thing about that is that they really could afford 3 or 4 kids in most cases. You know who isn't worried about whether or not he can afford to have another kid? Desmond Hatchett.

That is why I am in favor of 'forced' or 'coerced' sterilization or at a minimum 'forced' birth control for people on government assistance. If the idiots of society start reproducing much faster than the functioning members of society we are going to be screwed in a generation or two.

Wow, that's seriously silly. I hope you're joking.

[Snipe]

He is not joking. And I don't think it is fucked up. In my theory, he realizes that it is a numbers game, and he is worried about his own progeny. I worry about my kids too. I live in a dysfunctional black community, I don't think things are going well. I think the black community is in worse shape now than it was in decades past. What if that is the truth and I am right?

I will stake my claim on that. We have a few black populations. One is elite, and they are doing fine, better than ever.. One is middle class, and they struggle sometimes but end up alright. And then we have a low class black community, which I live in. My community is fucked up beyond repair. You would not believe the crap that I see. I am a landlord in the West End with 45 units (for sale, by the way if you want to get into real estate it would be a good buy, just give me your money)

I can't wait to get out of this place. It is going to be an inferno. We already have an escape plan. No way this shit can stand for all that long.

I live on the front lines, and I think (as I have already said) that society will collapse (at least in some places, like mine).

I worry about the liberals that will lose their lives when society falls down, because I find liberals more interesting to debate with.

[boozehound]

Wow, that's seriously fucked up. I hope you're joking.

Assuming that one believes in evolution and the basic theory of some kind of social 'contract' between members of a society I think it is very logical.

It certainly doesn't sound very good, but I have yet to hear a counter argument from somebody that is firmly grounded in reality and demonstrable fact, that society can continue to support the poor indefinitely while the poor reproduce at a rate more than double that of the wealthy (for the purposes of this argument I will define 'wealthy' as middle class and above).

The entire Welfare system is based on the premise that the wealthy will pay for the poor. If the mix shifts to the point where there are far more poor people than wealthy people where are we going to get the money to pay for the poor? You can only tax the wealthy so much. How are we going to pay for all the welfare recipients when they are multiplying so fast?

It's really quite similar to the issue that many of the American car companies had with their pensioners. The system was based on the theory that there will be many more workers than retirees. That pendulum swung the other way (due to retirees living longer with higher medical costs and reduction in size of labor force) and it eventually led to their going bankrupt and having to be bailed out.

Eventually we will likely have to either severly cut or eliminate welfare, or try to get fewer people on welfare programs. One way to have fewer people on welfare is to try to limit reproducing by people already on government assistance. I think it's only fair to the rest of us. They aren't holding up their part of the social 'contract' so they don't get to have kids. If they get off welfare they can do whatever they want.

[Roach]

Assuming that one believes in evolution and the basic theory of some kind of social 'contract' between members of a society I think it is very logical.

It certainly doesn't sound very good, but I have yet to hear a counter argument from somebody that is firmly grounded in reality and demonstrable fact, that society can continue to support the poor indefinitely while the poor reproduce at a rate more than double that of the wealthy (for the purposes of this argument I will define 'wealthy' as middle class and above).

The entire Welfare system is based on the premise that the wealthy will pay for the poor. If the mix shifts to the point where there are far more poor people than wealthy people where are we going to get the money to pay for the poor? You can only tax the wealthy so much. How are we going to pay for all the welfare recipients when they are multiplying so fast?

It's really quite similar to the issue that many of the American car companies had with their pensioners. The system was based on the theory that there will be many more workers than retirees. That pendulum swung the other way (due to retirees living longer with higher medical costs and reduction in size of labor force) and it eventually led to their going bankrupt and having to be bailed out.

Eventually we will likely have to either severly cut or eliminate welfare, or try to get fewer people on welfare programs. One way to have fewer people on welfare is to try to limit reproducing by people already on government assistance. I think it's only fair to the rest of us. They aren't holding up their part of the social 'contract' so they don't get to have kids. If they get off welfare they can do whatever they want.

I've said my peace about this in a previous post. If you really think what you claim, you have serious problems. You seem to think the poor's poverty is genetic. Regardless, you would have people deprived of their human rights before simply doing away with entitlement programs? Even if poverty were genetic, it wouldn't justify sterilizing someone for having an "undesirable" trait. As someone with a number of undesirable genetic traits, I am personally offended. I'm very happy to be alive, and I think your attitudes are dehumanizing and selfish. I'm no fan of government entitlement programs, but I'm at least charitable enough to recognize the poor deserve to be alive and enjoy the same human rights as the rest of us. If you disagree, I would politely ask you to remove your head from your rectum.

[boozehound]

I've said my peace about this in a previous post. If you really think what you claim, you have serious problems. You seem to think the poor's poverty is genetic. Regardless, you would have people deprived of their human rights before simply doing away with entitlement programs? Even if poverty were genetic, it wouldn't justify sterilizing someone for having an "undesirable" trait. As someone with a number of undesirable genetic traits, I am personally offended. I'm very happy to be alive, and I think your attitudes are dehumanizing and selfish. I'm no fan of government entitlement programs, but I'm at least charitable enough to recognize the poor deserve to be alive and enjoy the same human rights as the rest of us. If you disagree, I would politely ask you to remove your head from your rectum.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the two bolded statements. In the first statement you say you would rather eliminate entitlement programs than deprive the poor of their 'right' to have as many children as they want. You then talk about being charitable to the poor in that they deserve the 'right' to be alive. If we want to eliminate entitlement programs and let the poor completely fend for themselves my guess is that it would end up depriving some of them of their 'right' to be alive. Also, if they aren't on any entitlement programs then I guess they can have as many kids as a they want. I'm not paying for it, so I don't really have any input. When I am paying for it, I think that my tax dollars earn me the right to an opinion. If I am alreadly helping to pay for you and your children to live I don't thing it is fair to ask that you refrain from having any further children as long as you continue to be unable to support the children that you do have.

Also, my POV with regards to the average run-of-the-mill welfare recipient is not necessarily that they should be sterilized, but that they should be given some kind of birth control as a condition of continuing to receive benefits. They other option would be to say that they are 'kicked off' welfare if they have another kid while currently on welfare. The problem with that is that you end up hurting the kids a lot more than you would if you just got them to stop reproducing. Frankly I think my idea is the most humane option available to us. I'm not talking about throwing people to the wolves or letting people starve, I'm talking about ways to get people on welfare to stop having kids.

I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

Finally, I find it interesting that you are unable to carry on a discussion with anyone here without quickly resorting to personal insults. Your arguments are light on facts and heavy on opinions and insults. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have any idea what you are talking about.

It's easy to get on a high horse and talk about people's 'rights' without worrying about how they impact society as a whole or how we are going to pay for those 'rights'.

[American X]

I've said my peace about this in a previous post.

And With Your Spirit

[Roach]

I'm having a hard time reconciling the two bolded statements. In the first statement you say you would rather eliminate entitlement programs than deprive the poor of their 'right' to have as many children as they want. You then talk about being charitable to the poor in that they deserve the 'right' to be alive. If we want to eliminate entitlement programs and let the poor completely fend for themselves my guess is that it would end up depriving some of them of their 'right' to be alive. Also, if they aren't on any entitlement programs then I guess they can have as many kids as a they want. I'm not paying for it, so I don't really have any input. When I am paying for it, I think that my tax dollars earn me the right to an opinion. If I am alreadly helping to pay for you and your children to live I don't thing it is fair to ask that you refrain from having any further children as long as you continue to be unable to support the children that you do have.

Also, my POV with regards to the average run-of-the-mill welfare recipient is not necessarily that they should be sterilized, but that they should be given some kind of birth control as a condition of continuing to receive benefits. They other option would be to say that they are 'kicked off' welfare if they have another kid while currently on welfare. The problem with that is that you end up hurting the kids a lot more than you would if you just got them to stop reproducing. Frankly I think my idea is the most humane option available to us. I'm not talking about throwing people to the wolves or letting people starve, I'm talking about ways to get people on welfare to stop having kids.

I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

Finally, I find it interesting that you are unable to carry on a discussion with anyone here without quickly resorting to personal insults. Your arguments are light on facts and heavy on opinions and insults. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have any idea what you are talking about.

It's easy to get on a high horse and talk about people's 'rights' without worrying about how they impact society as a whole or how we are going to pay for those 'rights'.

What makes you think IQ is purely genetic? Afghan women have lower IQs than the "average person" as well, but it's certainly not because of inferior genetics. Being forcibly denied a basic education might affect one's IQ, as could a host of other stressors. Dismissing environmental factors or free will was the first step that Margarate Sanger and Adolf Hitler used to justify eugenics as well. Great company you're keeping ...

Look, I can acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree on the merits of birth control, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and a host of other sensitive topics. But this crackpot argument simply hits too close to home, as I explained a few comments back. The fact that this implicated my life is largely why I stayed out of this ridiculous debate for so long in the first place. Even a casual student of history should recognize the slippery slope on which eugenics theory rests. If you want to cast your lots with the historical loons, murderers, and tyrants who've endorsed the same ideas, be my guest. But don't expect me to be very cordial, especially when the theory you endorse would hold that I should never have been born.

[paulxu]

What makes you think IQ is purely genetic? ...... Dismissing environmental factors or free will was the first step that Margarate Sanger and Adolf Hitler used to justify eugenics as well.

Seriously, do you even bother to read what you are responding to before you reply? I'm taking no position on these issues one way or another. But it's stupid to bring up the Hitler card.

But read what he wrote for the love of God.

His said "component."
He did not say "purely."
He did not "dismiss environmental factors."
He said they "definitely play a major role."


I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

[Roach]

Seriously, do you even bother to read what you are responding to before you reply? I'm taking no position on these issues one way or another. But it's stupid to bring up the Hitler card.

But read what he wrote for the love of God.

His said "component."
He did not say "purely."
He did not "dismiss environmental factors."
He said they "definitely play a major role."

Yes, paul, I read his entire post, as I read all posts to which I reply. Now, do me a favor and re-read boozehound's post carefully. He was specifically citing lower IQs in poorer areas as evidence of a genetic link to poverty:


I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

To me, that is dismissing any environmental factor as explaining lower IQs in poorer areas. He was citing the lower IQs amongst the welfare class to support his argument that poverty (not IQ) is partly genetic. In other words, he's saying that because the poor have lower IQs, poverty is partly genetic. That was the rhetorical slight of hand to which I was responding. He was using an example which cannot be held to be perfectly genetic in an attempt to argue that poverty is at least partly genetic. The conclusion is not in any way supported by the premise. To boot, it dismisses the notion that there is an environmental component to IQ.

I stand by my response.

[GoMuskies]

I often say things "play a major role" when I am dismissing them entirely. Makes perfect sense.

[boozehound]

What makes you think IQ is purely genetic? Afghan women have lower IQs than the "average person" as well, but it's certainly not because of inferior genetics. Being forcibly denied a basic education might affect one's IQ, as could a host of other stressors. Dismissing environmental factors or free will was the first step that Margarate Sanger and Adolf Hitler used to justify eugenics as well. Great company you're keeping ...

Look, I can acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree on the merits of birth control, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and a host of other sensitive topics. But this crackpot argument simply hits too close to home, as I explained a few comments back. The fact that this implicated my life is largely why I stayed out of this ridiculous debate for so long in the first place. Even a casual student of history should recognize the slippery slope on which eugenics theory rests. If you want to cast your lots with the historical loons, murderers, and tyrants who've endorsed the same ideas, be my guest. But don't expect me to be very cordial, especially when the theory you endorse would hold that I should never have been born.

...and we have the Hitler card ladies and gentlemen! I was waiting for this one. Drawing this parallel is frankly insulting to anyone of Jewish decent, particularly those with relatives who were impacted by the holocaust. To call advocating birth control as a requirement for receiving government aid eugenics and comparable to Hitler is hyperbolic to the point of ridiculousness and frankly makes it hard to take you at all seriously.

[waggy]

That was the rhetorical slight of hand to which I was responding.

Oh the irony.

The preceding is a rhetorical comment - please don't reply.

[Roach]

...and we have the Hitler card ladies and gentlemen! I was waiting for this one. Drawing this parallel is frankly insulting to anyone of Jewish decent, particularly those with relatives who were impacted by the holocaust. To call advocating birth control as a requirement for receiving government aid eugenics and comparable to Hitler is hyperbolic to the point of ridiculousness and frankly makes it hard to take you at all seriously.

Right, I'm sure my Jewish friends would be wildly offended by my referencing Hitler to dismiss eugenics, genetic purity, and forced sterilization. Hitler's name should never be mentioned and we should just forget that whole Holocaust thing ever happened. SMH ...

Also, I find it funny that you think you can rebrandish your argument in defense of forced or coerced "sterilization" as favoring "birth control", as if the two are one in the same. Somehow, the relative levels of voluntariness do not distinguish the two?

Oh, and waggy and GoMuskies, your comments are obviously intended to insult me. I won't do you the favor of being insulted. Good luck next time.

[boozehound]

Right, I'm sure my Jewish friends would be wildly offended by my referencing Hitler to dismiss eugenics, genetic purity, and forced sterilization. Hitler's name should never be mentioned and we should just forget that Holocaust thing ever happened. SMH ...

Also, I find it funny that you think you can rebrandish your argument in defense of forced or coerced "sterilization" as favoring "birth control", as if the two are one in the same. Somehow, the relative levels of voluntariness does not distinguish the two?

Rebrandish? What are you even talking about?

Go back through the thread and you will see where I mention forced birth control / sterilization. I don't really care which. If you are Desmond Hatchett with 30 kids then I am find with forced sterilization. If you are on 26 and Welfare with one kid the forced birth control is probably more appropriate and sterilization may be overly permanent.

I'm not really talking about eugenics as much as I am talking about not having more kids while you are on welfare.

[waggy]

your comments are obviously intended to insult me.

No just making a point that the rhetoric and slight of hand goes both ways at the very least.

[Roach]

While I'm at it, I'll also respond to something you said earlier. You suggest that my simultaneously believing the poor have a right to live/procreate and opposing both forced or coercive sterilization and entitlement programs is inconsistent. They are not. Simply because human beings have a right to life does not mean that the government has a duty to feed, clothe, or shelter them. I do believe that access to basic necessities is a basic human right, but I also think prudential judgment should govern how access to these necessities is provided. As history has repeatedly borne out, a modified free market best ensures that the greatest number of people will have access to affordable food, clothing, and shelter. I do not believe it is the government's general role or duty to distribute them to all citizens, especially those who have more than enough as it is. At the same time, I believe that any morally upright society will ensure that all hungry or impoverished people within their reach are fed, clothed, and sheltered. This starts, first, with charity. The vast majority of food banks, homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the U.S. are run by private charities. This should be, in my mind, the first line of defense. Because we are, statistically, by far the most charitable country in the world, I believe we meet this need rather well, despite the extent to which entitlement programs exacerbate the problems of poverty.

Lastly, if and when charities fail to cover the gap, and there are people starving to death, to the extent the government can pick up the slack, it should, much like it did during the Great Depression. We are not in such dire circumstances, and certainly were not in 1967 when LBJ's "Great Society" began undermining our economy (I guess you could lump FDR in there as well for his role in establishing Social Security). Regardless, it is perfectly tenable to both support the general rights to live and procreate (even for the poor) and oppose government entitlement or sterilization/birth control programs. They are not antithetical positions.

[Roach]

Rebrandish? What are you even talking about?

Go back through the thread and you will see where I mention forced birth control / sterilization. I don't really care which. If you are Desmond Hatchett with 30 kids then I am find with forced sterilization. If you are on 26 and Welfare with one kid the forced birth control is probably more appropriate and sterilization may be overly permanent.

I'm not really talking about eugenics as much as I am talking about not having more kids while you are on welfare.

To me, the breadth of your eugenicist policy matters not. It is what it is.

[paulxu]

I'm going to give it one more try (glutton for punishment I guess).

If you want to have a serious discussion about an issue, and one poster says:

"Enviornmental factors definitely play a major role"

and you decide that because he talks about another component (genetics) that he has dissmissed environmental factors, then I can only conclude you are not serious about the discussion at all.

[Roach]

I'm going to give it one more try (glutton for punishment I guess).

If you want to have a serious discussion about an issue, and one poster says:

"Enviornmental factors definitely play a major role"

and you decide that because he talks about another component (genetics) that he has dissmissed environmental factors, then I can only conclude you are not serious about the discussion at all.

Ok, paul, I'll give it "one more try" as well.

Please demonstrate where boozehound acknowledged that there is an environmental component to IQ, not poverty, but Intelligence Quotient.

Again, he used lower IQs among the welfare class as evidence that there is a genetic component to poverty. How does this in any way acknowledge that there is an environmental component to IQ?

Further, if there is some environmental component to IQ, how can a lower IQ be evidence of a genetic component to poverty at all? Can we quantify which component of IQ, whether genetic or environmental, contributes to one's poverty? If not, then lower IQs being more common amongst the welfare class is evidence of absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Let me break it down in logic format for you. Here is boozehound's reasoning -

(a) I believe poverty is partly environmental; but
(b) The poor have a lower average IQ than the non-poor;
(c) Therefore there is a genetic component to poverty.

However, a + b does not = c . The conclusion dismisses the fact that IQ may be wholly, predominantly, or even partially environmental. In other words, you cannot argue that poverty is partly genetic by referencing something which might be entirely environmental. It's inconsistent.

Lastly, to the extent that IQ is environmental, or even might be, it is unfair to conclude that the poor's poverty is the result of their genetics. The same was said about slaves with respect to their slavery. The minute we try to find some "natural" or "biologically unavoidable" cause of one's situational difficulties in life, we dismiss free will, their value as human beings, and their capacity to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and solve their own problems. In my mind, this sort of patronizing of the poor is the very basis upon which welfare was established in the first place.

[paulxu]

I think we should probably let Boozehound speak for himself. But his statement was:

I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

I read that to say environmental factors play a major role in poverty. Not that environmental factors play a role in IQ. IQ may also play a role in poverty.

When he speaks of IQ playing a role in poverty, he notes that IQ may be partially genetic.

The next thing I know, you've taken his "partially" phrase and decided to ask him what makes him think IQ is "purely" genetic, and that he shouldn't be Hitler and forget about environmental factors.

You seem to want to take a reasonable statement and bust it out to some extreme level, ignoring the thoughtful qualifiers to make your point. I don't believe you help any discussion by doing that.

[Roach]

I think we should probably let Boozehound speak for himself. But his statement was:

I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

I read that to say environmental factors play a major role in poverty. Not that environmental factors play a role in IQ. IQ may also play a role in poverty.

When he speaks of IQ playing a role in poverty, he notes that IQ may be partially genetic.

The next thing I know, you've taken his "partially" phrase and decided to ask him what makes him think IQ is "purely" genetic, and that he shouldn't be Hitler and forget about environmental factors.

You seem to want to take a reasonable statement and bust it out to some extreme level, ignoring the thoughtful qualifiers to make your point. I don't believe you help any discussion by doing that.

Nowhere does he say that IQ is "partially genetic". He simply references it as evidence that poverty is partly genetic. There is no "bust[ing] it out to some extreme level" or ignoring of "thoughtful qualifiers". It's simple logic. The conclusion does not follow the premise; it presumes that IQ is purely genetic. That was my criticism all along.

[boozehound]

I think we should probably let Boozehound speak for himself. But his statement was:

I also do believe that there is a genetic component to poverty. Environmental factors definitely play a major role as well, but there is a lot of evidence that intelligence, for example, is at least partially genetic. Typically welfare class has lower IQ's than other classes of society.

I read that to say environmental factors play a major role in poverty. Not that environmental factors play a role in IQ. IQ may also play a role in poverty.

When he speaks of IQ playing a role in poverty, he notes that IQ may be partially genetic.

The next thing I know, you've taken his "partially" phrase and decided to ask him what makes him think IQ is "purely" genetic, and that he shouldn't be Hitler and forget about environmental factors.

You seem to want to take a reasonable statement and bust it out to some extreme level, ignoring the thoughtful qualifiers to make your point. I don't believe you help any discussion by doing that.


Nowhere does he say that IQ is "partially genetic". He simply references it as evidence that poverty is partly genetic. There is no "bust[ing] it out to some extreme level" or ignoring of "thoughtful qualifiers". It's simple logic. The conclusion does not follow the premise; it presumes that IQ is purely genetic. That was my criticism all along.

I really don't know how to be any more clear than I already have. Multiple people have tried to explain to you what I am saying. You aren't listening. I see no point in further continuing this discussion with you. If anybody else would like to weigh in on this topic I would love to discuss it further, but there has to be some component of rationality.

[Roach]

I would love to discuss it further, but there has to be some component of rationality.

Any last vestige of rationality was abandoned the moment various posters in this thread advocated depriving people of their human rights. And again, I stand by my criticism. Your suggestion that the poor having lower IQs is evidence of a genetic component of poverty is flatly illogical, thereby belying any statement you made earlier about "intelligence at least partly genetic." Even if one concedes that intelligence is partly genetic, one cannot conclude or even find support for the notion that poverty is genetic. Let's play this out again, for those hellbent on "rationality" ...

a) Intelligence is partly genetic;
b) The poor have lower IQs; ergo
c) Poverty is partly genetic.

Even if you could prove that intelligence is partly genetic, you could not, in turn, conclude that it is this "genetic" component that explains any lower IQ amongst the poor, or that it in turn explains their poverty. Again, a + b does not equal c. Draw Venn diagrams representing this logic sequence and you'll see how it doesn't add up. In short, your conclusion is [B]entirely speculative and, frankly, patronizing and insulting to people who, for whatever reason, happen to be poor. To suggest that some unidentified, hypothetical genetic component of intelligence is reason enough to force the poor to use birth control, sterilize them, or otherwise stop them from procreating is elitist and absurd. Even if we were to conclusively prove that genetics is partly to blame for poverty, it is an insufficient justification for what's being proposed. Again, I stand by disdain for this opinion. Call me "lacking in rationality", call me insulting, call me whatever the hell you want. Bottom line - your opinion is predicated on a logical inconsistency, is inhumane and violative of a well defined human right, and, given its personal implications to me, I find it wholly disgusting.

[Hudson]

It's a matter of nature vs. nurture, I side with nurture. Intelligence is genetic to some degree, there are definitely people who are smarter than others. I think that is a fine argument to make. However when you connect this to poverty it is a stretch, there are a lot of poor people, to claim they are all poor because they are dumb is ridiculous. I believe a fair amount of one's IQ is developed after birth, so education and upbringing are essential. People are dealt different hands/parents, some people are born into poor households and have to work because their parents can't support them, so they can't go to school. Some people are smart because their parents are wealthy and can get them tutoring and private education, of course there are people in between these examples. My ancestors who immigrated to America were poor, is it because they were genetically inferior? No, it's because they had to escape the potato famine. The next generation of my family had better education as a result of the immigration, they became smarter, and therefore more successful. For wealth and intelligence to be directly related we would have to live in a vacuum of sorts, where everyone starts at the same place and has the same opportunities.

[Snipe]

What makes you think IQ is purely genetic? Afghan women have lower IQs than the "average person" as well, but it's certainly not because of inferior genetics. Being forcibly denied a basic education might affect one's IQ, as could a host of other stressors. Dismissing environmental factors or free will was the first step that Margarate Sanger and Adolf Hitler used to justify eugenics as well. Great company you're keeping ...

Look, I can acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree on the merits of birth control, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and a host of other sensitive topics. But this crackpot argument simply hits too close to home, as I explained a few comments back. The fact that this implicated my life is largely why I stayed out of this ridiculous debate for so long in the first place. Even a casual student of history should recognize the slippery slope on which eugenics theory rests. If you want to cast your lots with the historical loons, murderers, and tyrants who've endorsed the same ideas, be my guest. But don't expect me to be very cordial, especially when the theory you endorse would hold that I should never have been born.

Why are you certain that Afghan women do not have "inferior genetics"? Lots of tribal clanish inbreeding that goes on there, and I think that the Pashtun are basically a white people. Afghan women face hurdles for sure, but does that mean that they are on the same standard of everyone else? I agree it hurts them, but why are you so sure that genetics aren't a factor?

What about the historical loons, murderers and tyrants? Can you list them? I think you already have. Hitler, Hitler Hitler! What about the other historical "loons" that endorsed eugenics? Can you list all the prominent people that endorsed Eugenics? (ie, not just Hitler?) It seems to me like it wasn't only Hitler. For a point of History, Hitler himself admired the work that we were doing with Eugenics. Take that as you want, but it does show that he wasn't the first. What about Teddy Roosevelt or John Maynard Keynes? Are they Hitler? Who wants to align themselves with Teddy or Keynes? It seems like it is a lot of people.

[Snipe]

The entire Welfare system is based on the premise that the wealthy will pay for the poor. If the mix shifts to the point where there are far more poor people than wealthy people where are we going to get the money to pay for the poor? You can only tax the wealthy so much. How are we going to pay for all the welfare recipients when they are multiplying so fast?



It is a numbers game. At some point the Welfare State is going to collapse because of demographics. The Welfare state cannot sustain the onslaught. If you like and treasure the welfare state, the best way to defend it would be demographically. Instead we try "education". Muahhahah! Good luck with that.

[Snipe]

To me, that is dismissing any environmental factor as explaining lower IQs in poorer areas. He was citing the lower IQs amongst the welfare class to support his argument that poverty (not IQ) is partly genetic. In other words, he's saying that because the poor have lower IQs, poverty is partly genetic. That was the rhetorical slight of hand to which I was responding. He was using an example which cannot be held to be perfectly genetic in an attempt to argue that poverty is at least partly genetic. The conclusion is not in any way supported by the premise. To boot, it dismisses the notion that there is an environmental component to IQ.



Heritable vs Genetic

Heritable means that you get it from your parents. That can but does not only mean genetic. Your parents raise you, and if you are a fan of nurture over nature, that means a lot.

Genetic means that you get it from your genes. Your parents matter because they give you those genes, but after that, you pretty much are what you are.

Most people think that their is a mix of nature and nurture, the argument is over to what extent each factor has influence. I myself think that both are factors, as our nutrition and health.

Poverty is heritable given the statistics. Intelligence is heritable too. Parents pass it on to their kids. Does it matter if it is genetic? We still have the same problem either way. And the kids who overcome poverty tend to be the ones with more intelligence, or at least the ones who do better on tests that measure intelligence.

If it is heritable, does it matter if it id genetic? I think that genetics has a profound influence on who we are. If I am wrong, it isn't like the problems are going to go away. People still seem to inherit these traits, which is why we call them heritable. If a crack whore is going to have bad kids, does it matter to me if it is because of defective genes or because she is bad parent? In the end, both explanations still give you bad kids, and because of heritability, the cycle will continue.

[Snipe]

Right, I'm sure my Jewish friends would be wildly offended by my referencing Hitler to dismiss eugenics, genetic purity, and forced sterilization. Hitler's name should never be mentioned and we should just forget that whole Holocaust thing ever happened. SMH ...

Also, I find it funny that you think you can rebrandish your argument in defense of forced or coerced "sterilization" as favoring "birth control", as if the two are one in the same. Somehow, the relative levels of voluntariness do not distinguish the two?

Oh, and waggy and GoMuskies, your comments are obviously intended to insult me. I won't do you the favor of being insulted. Good luck next time.

In pre World War II Germany Jews were at the top of German society, just as they are today in the Untied States. People weren't pissed because of "all those Jews on Welfare" or worried that all those retarded Jews might reproduce. Jews statistically dominated, just as they do here today. Hitler hated the Jews for sure, but I am not sure what he did was "Eugenics". It surely wasn't eugenics as it was practiced in this country for most of the last century.

[Snipe]

Lastly, to the extent that IQ is environmental, or even might be, it is unfair to conclude that the poor's poverty is the result of their genetics. The same was said about slaves with respect to their slavery. The minute we try to find some "natural" or "biologically unavoidable" cause of one's situational difficulties in life, we dismiss free will, their value as human beings, and their capacity to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and solve their own problems. In my mind, this sort of patronizing of the poor is the very basis upon which welfare was established in the first place.

It is an interesting point. The Welfare State was designed by progressives that held firm beliefs in eugenics and biological determination. Perhaps people that believed in self determination and free will would have designed a system more dynamic to help people who aspire and work hard to gain greater horizons.

I read an article once that made the same point, and it was one I had not encountered before. I feel it is an interesting point and should not be dismissed.

[Roach]

Why are you certain that Afghan women do not have "inferior genetics"? Lots of tribal clanish inbreeding that goes on there, and I think that the Pashtun are basically a white people. Afghan women face hurdles for sure, but does that mean that they are on the same standard of everyone else? I agree it hurts them, but why are you so sure that genetics aren't a factor?

What about the historical loons, murderers and tyrants? Can you list them? I think you already have. Hitler, Hitler Hitler! What about the other historical "loons" that endorsed eugenics? Can you list all the prominent people that endorsed Eugenics? (ie, not just Hitler?) It seems to me like it wasn't only Hitler. For a point of History, Hitler himself admired the work that we were doing with Eugenics. Take that as you want, but it does show that he wasn't the first. What about Teddy Roosevelt or John Maynard Keynes? Are they Hitler? Who wants to align themselves with Teddy or Keynes? It seems like it is a lot of people.

I sure as hell don't want to align myself with either. Keynes was, to be gentle, a moron. His economic theory is half the reason we're in the fiscal mess that we are. Excessive government spending, entitlement and deficit spending liberals may love him (like Obama does), but Keynes was most definitely a loon.

So too was Teddy Roosevelt. He may have loved to hunt panda bears in China and was a Republican in his foreign policy, but today there is little doubt he'd be a tree-hugging, UAW-loving, big-government hippy. The only reason he was ever considered a good president is because, more than any other pre-mass media president, he was able to capitalize on populist fervor. He's probably the most overated commander-in-chief in the history of the American Presidency (and we wonder why Teddy is the only Mt. Rushmore President mascot that is never allowed to win the race at Nationals games?). His being a eugenicist only supports this opinion.

As for other "historical loons" who fit the bill, you can include Josef Mengele, Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Samuel Gompers, Lothrop Stoddard. I could go on ...

[boozehound]

It's a matter of nature vs. nurture, I side with nurture. Intelligence is genetic to some degree, there are definitely people who are smarter than others. I think that is a fine argument to make. However when you connect this to poverty it is a stretch, there are a lot of poor people, to claim they are all poor because they are dumb is ridiculous. I believe a fair amount of one's IQ is developed after birth, so education and upbringing are essential. People are dealt different hands/parents, some people are born into poor households and have to work because their parents can't support them, so they can't go to school. Some people are smart because their parents are wealthy and can get them tutoring and private education, of course there are people in between these examples. My ancestors who immigrated to America were poor, is it because they were genetically inferior? No, it's because they had to escape the potato famine. The next generation of my family had better education as a result of the immigration, they became smarter, and therefore more successful. For wealth and intelligence to be directly related we would have to live in a vacuum of sorts, where everyone starts at the same place and has the same opportunities.

Not directly related but certainly related. As Snipe points out below for the purposes of this argument nature vs nurture is almost irrelevant. Desmond Hatchett's children aren't being dealt a strong genetic hand and I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority are going to have pretty messed up upbringings as well. We are all better off if people on welfare don't have a ton of kids. The next step is finding out how to make that happen.



If it is heritable, does it matter if it id genetic? I think that genetics has a profound influence on who we are. If I am wrong, it isn't like the problems are going to go away. People still seem to inherit these traits, which is why we call them heritable. If a crack whore is going to have bad kids, does it matter to me if it is because of defective genes or because she is bad parent? In the end, both explanations still give you bad kids, and because of heritability, the cycle will continue.

Well put.

[xudash]

Derelicts have come from backgrounds of prestige and mind-numbing advantages.

Truly remarkable people have come from situations that resembled hell.

Free will is a bitch. When it is all said and done, it remains up to the individual.

Yet the question is how much of a chance is the individual being provided? First and foremost, improved chances come from being a part of a strong family unit; the parent(s) have to value human life and understand their OBLIGATION, having brought a new life onto this rock. Grounded moral and ethical behavior needs coded into the child from there - raise the child to lead a good life. If that foundation exists, then financial resources help determine options from there, including levels of education and where education is to be obtained, as well as opportunities that may exist for affluent versus non-affluent people.

How do you social engineer any of that? You can't in a free society. You can attempt to educate young people about the consequences of having sex and procreating, but it remains up to them to make the right choices, including not becoming addicts.

Should addicts be sterilized? That was the original question. At what point does respect for their rights become outweighed by their damaging effects on society? Enact a law. Set an expectation. Communicate it: "if you go down this road, which no one should go down, the consequences of that action will be..............." As an added note, cut off any form of funding for people who give birth to a child just so they can collect more government money. They clearly don't understand the obligation. What an absurd Pavlovian conditioning approach, except for politicians protecting a voter base.

The United States has serious issues looming with its major entitlement programs. This is an educated board, so I have to imagine everyone here knows, as one example, that Social Security presumed "financial stop-gap coverage" so that a person could live a dignant life for their last few years beyond the age of 65. We're looking at actuarial tables that show people living into their 90's now. In addition to that reality, as bad as it is, we understand that we don't have demographics working in our favor either - the generation that has to help fund this thing isn't big enough to fund the numbers being thrown around now.

Do nothing? Okay. In the abstract, I'd guess you would be looking at the United States tracking ancient Rome in perhaps a few generations, absent a global war. We're well past doing nothing.

Charity for those that want a better life and need support is a must. Others that don't care and are too far gone cannot take finite resources away from struggling families and children who still have and want a chance.

[Snipe]

As for other "historical loons" who fit the bill, you can include Josef Mengele, Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Samuel Gompers, Lothrop Stoddard. I could go on ...

I recently read Stoddard's "The French Revolution in San Domingo (http://www.amazon.com/The-French-Revolution-San-Domingo/dp/1257632396)" (free e-book here (http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02058963&id=iwQOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage)). I found it to be a very interesting read. Have to say I am a fan.

Famous supporters of Eugenics:

Alexander Graham Bell
American Medical Association
Arthur Balfour
Clarence Gamble of Cincinnati Fame
Francis Galton
George Bernard Shaw
H.G. Wells
John Maynard Keynes
Julian Huxley
Linus Pauling
Mensa
Plato
Theodore Roosevelt
William Shockley
Winston Churchill
Woodrow Wilson



Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century.

Loons indeed.

Oh yeah, I forgot Hitler.

Hitler liked Dogs too. Hitler liked organic food, and we all know he was an artist. I know what you are thinking, I have never trusted those organic foodies either. I think they all have it in them.

[Roach]

I recently read Stoddard's "The French Revolution in San Domingo (http://www.amazon.com/The-French-Revolution-San-Domingo/dp/1257632396)" (free e-book here (http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02058963&id=iwQOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage)). I found it to be a very interesting read. Have to say I am a fan.

Read Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy , and then tell me he was not a loon.

As for the inventor of the lightbulb being an advocate of eugenics, well, I think it's safe to say that bioethics was beyond the scope of his expertise. As is true for just about every other person on your list ...

[boozehound]

Should addicts be sterilized? That was the original question. At what point does respect for their rights become outweighed by their damaging effects on society? Enact a law. Set an expectation. Communicate it: "if you go down this road, which no one should go down, the consequences of that action will be..............." As an added note, cut off any form of funding for people who give birth to a child just so they can collect more government money. They clearly don't understand the obligation. What an absurd Pavlovian conditioning approach, except for politicians protecting a voter base.

The United States has serious issues looming with its major entitlement programs. This is an educated board, so I have to imagine everyone here knows, as one example, that Social Security presumed "financial stop-gap coverage" so that a person could live a dignant life for their last few years beyond the age of 65. We're looking at actuarial tables that show people living into their 90's now. In addition to that reality, as bad as it is, we understand that we don't have demographics working in our favor either - the generation that has to help fund this thing isn't big enough to fund the numbers being thrown around now.

Do nothing? Okay. In the abstract, I'd guess you would be looking at the United States tracking ancient Rome in perhaps a few generations, absent a global war. We're well past doing nothing.

Charity for those that want a better life and need support is a must. Others that don't care and are too far gone cannot take finite resources away from struggling families and children who still have and want a chance.

Very good and very logical points, dash. We need to to make massive changes to entitlements if we want them to continue to survive, and I don't want to be around when the welfare checks stop coming one day. Major civil unrest. We are far better off reforming the system more gradually than waiting until it becomes completely insolvent (although you could argue that we are already there). Drug addicts, losers, and the dregs of society are hurting us all tremendously by having scads of kids that they cannot pay for. I personally would rather see us reduce the number of kids these people are having through birth control or sterilization than see us cut off welfare benefits to people for having more kids.

It's nice to say that we need to educate them and everything will turn out OK. It won't. Birth control doesn't seem to be working either. How much money would we have saved the government if we had sterilized Desmond Hatchett 25 kids ago? He still would have had 5 kids. That's a lot of kids for an average person.

I'm not talking about sterilizing everybody, just a select few. A better system for the average welfare recipient would be something along the lines of "Come down to the welfare office to pick up your check and get your depro provera shot."

Bottom line: If you are on welfare, society is paying for you to live. That earns them some say in what you do and how many kids you have. If you don't want other people weighing in on those issues then get off of welfare. If my parents were paying my mortgage because I couldn't make ends meet and I decided to have a kid they would have every right to be pissed off. I couldn't meet my current financial obligations so I went ahead and increased them? That's crazy! Why do we let people do it?

[Snipe]

Read Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy , and then tell me he was not a loon.

As for the inventor of the lightbulb being an advocate of eugenics, well, I think it's safe to say that bioethics was beyond the scope of his expertise. As is true for just about every other person on your list ...

Biotethics? Who is it beyond the scope of? I just talked about a guy having 30 kids. Am I not allowed to talk about bioethics? Is it beyond my scope? Who are the famous bioethicists? Presumably, they agree with you. Can anyone outside Roach name one prominent bioethicist?

What is bioethics?

From the wiki:


Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy.

What in that definition would not make Hitler a man of bioethics? He may of been on the wrong side, but it appears that he was well attuned to studying all of those facets of biological life. And if Hitler is on your side, (gasp)....

[Snipe]

Roach, in the same Bioethics article they site Peter Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer). He is a main player apparently in bioethics.


[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

Note: I think that might be Eugenics, Neo-Eugenics, or just bloody murder, whatever you want to call it.

I think Hitler would have agreed with that. So maybe you should consult people trained in bioethics. Peter Singer is on the frontlines:



Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

[Roach]

Biotethics? Who is it beyond the scope of? I just talked about a guy having 30 kids. Am I not allowed to talk about bioethics? Is it beyond my scope? Who are the famous bioethicists? Presumably, they agree with you. Can anyone outside Roach name one prominent bioethicist?

What is bioethics?

From the wiki:



What in that definition would not make Hitler a man of bioethics? He may of been on the wrong side, but it appears that he was well attuned to studying all of those facets of biological life. And if Hitler is on your side, (gasp)....

Oh please, Snipe. All I was saying is that Bell's expertise relied upon in inventing the light bulb is unrelated to his opinions about eugenics. In other words, wisdom in one area does not preclude foolishness in another.

[Snipe]

Appropos of our discussion about children with Downs Syndrome.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/bristolpalin/files/2012/05/Eightpercent.png

Definitely makes the idea of eugenics disgusting in my mind.

What does "I am one of the 8%" mean to you Roach?

Instinctively (and mathematically) to me, it means that 92% of Downs kids are aborted on demand.

You said that this
"Definitely makes the idea of eugenics disgusting in my mind."

It is so disgusting that it happens in 92 out of 100 cases. But is the real incidence rate 92%? I would guess that it would be higher than that. Not all pregnant women undergo genetic testing fpr Downs. I would guess that many people have Downs kids without knowing the fact that their kid actually had Downs before they were legally allowed to kill it. For the record, I have never killed anyone, ever.. You lambast me for contraception, but our standard practice is killing instead. Which is more humane?

I would suggest to you that the real incidence rate of Downs abortions is much higher than 92%, and perhaps as high as 98% or more. When people know the information and the consequences, they tend to make a unanimous decision. Those decisions cut across cultural, ideological and political lines. Apparently from the statistics, people don't want Downs kids, and they would rather kill them than rear them.

Is that Eugenics? I would say YES YES YES! We practice Eugenics today, and we have always practiced some form of it. The only change is that today we also practice dysgenics, which is relatively new. We practice paying and subsidizing poor candidates for procreation with the Welfare State. And we get what we pay for. The Food Stamp President realizes the potential voter value in this, and I don't see that changing much.

Now I haven't killed even one baby Roach, yet I am in league with Hitler according to you. Most kids with Downs get killed on the spot, and that is standard operating procedure. If anything is bi-partisan today, it has to be the killing of Downs children. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians do it. It is one thing we all seem to agree upon.

So when I say I want to sterilize someone, which won't kill anyone, I am Hitler. But when we kill all of the Downs babies it is an accepted eugenic practice going on right now.

Like Bill Clinton, I do it for the Children. Except sometimes Bill used to actually "Do" the children.

Also, I would like to point out that this will expand in the future. We won't stop at killing all the Downs babies, we will kill babies with many more defects as soon as it becomes affordable. Our Eugenic future is inevitable in my view, and part of that makes me sad. Either way, it is on the horizon right now and is already happening. I can't stop it, and neither can you.

[Snipe]

Appropos of our discussion about children with Downs Syndrome.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/bristolpalin/files/2012/05/Eightpercent.png

Definitely makes the idea of eugenics disgusting in my mind.

Also, I have to note that I am a cynical bastard when it comes to media bias and representation.

When they show Downs kids they show kids. They don't show the 37 year old with Downs. That would just reinforce that Downs kids are for life. The kids are cute and photogenic, the 37 year-old is not cute, he is just a reminder that your Downs kid may well outlive you, and then who is going to care for him?

It is not like you get to turn them in once they reach 12, and after that maybe it isn't so pretty. Given today's politics, you can even mainstream them in public schools. But after those schools they still live a great deal, and they need assistance. There is a reason they just show the kids in photo ops, and I think that is the reason. A Downs kid is a commitment until death, and many people statistically wish to not make that commitment.

[Snipe]

Oh please, Snipe. All I was saying is that Bell's expertise relied upon in inventing the light bulb is unrelated to his opinions about eugenics. In other words, wisdom in one area does not preclude foolishness in another.

It was the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell

I bet the light-bulb guys believed in Eugenics too though.

And why are you qualified to talk about bioethics if luminaries like Alexander Graham Bell were not? What is your CV and your reason to discount and humiliate them? They just didn't know as much as you do?

[Roach]

It was the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell

I bet the light-bulb guys believed in Eugenics too though.

And why are you qualified to talk about bioethics if luminaries like Alexander Graham Bell were not? What is your CV and your reason to discount and humiliate them? They just didn't know as much as you do?

I've published papers on bioethics if you'd like to read one of them. I'm an attorney; I studied bioethics both in college and law school. I worked for a Bioethics think-tank. You want me to post a sample paper here? I'd be happy to do so.

And yes, my mistake. Bell invented the telephone; Edison invented the light bulb. An irrelevant mistake as to my larger point.

[GoMuskies]

I'm an attorney

Do you know LA Muskie?

[CinciX12]

This was actually one of the more interesting topics to see debated on here in recent memory. Chris Mack and Co have just beaten me down to the point I'd rather discuss social policy I guess.

But it typical XH fashion, we have somehow moved on to belittling one another over who invented the telephone.

[Roach]

Do you know LA Muskie?

He and I have interacted on the forum a few times. It doesn't seem that he and I agree on an awful lot, but he's levelheaded, well-reasoned and respectful.

[paulxu]

Do you know LA Muskie?

Yikes!

[Snipe]

Read Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy , and then tell me he was not a loon.



Have you read that book?

[XU-PA]

Initial question, Should addicts be sterilized?

Answer, no. Not in this country, not in this century, never.

[Roach]

Have you read that book?

Yes, I have read it. In a nutshell, Stoddard asserts that white Europeans' bringing certain semblances of order from the "white" world to the "colored" world (such as modern medicine, democracy and free enterprise) had had the effect of inflating "colored" populations in allegedly overpopulated regions, thereby causing the "coloreds" to flee to the allegedly appropriately populated "white" world. For whatever reason, Stoddard believed that "coloreds" had no capacity to control themselves, and would effectively breed like rabbits if there weren't the ordinary impediments to survival, such as famine, disease or political upheaval. This in turn would lead to a supposed influx of "coloreds" into the "white" world, and thereby threaten the "white" world's very existence. Ergo, the genetically inferior "coloreds" would ultimately overtake and destroy the very race of people with the genetic wherewithal to develop and maintain "order". Effectively, Stoddard was a racist, eugenicist and a Malthusian alarmist all wrapped into one crazy mind. In all cases, he was both paranoid and incorrect.

The book is actually a fairly interesting read, as Stoddard had an acute capacity to appreciate often overlooked or unrecognized truths about human existence. Unfortunately, he extrapolated ridiculous and faulty conclusions from these truths, and in turn endorsed inhumane measures of correcting the nonexistent problems he incorrectly identified. He was both brilliant and an idiot all at the same time. In his case, I'm more than happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are plenty of brilliant socio-political thinkers out there that will recognize the same truths as Stoddard, but still maintain a rudimentary appreciation for the value and dignity of the human person. I'll stake my loyalty with them.

[Snipe]

Having already read Stoddard and found him interesting, I think I will read that book eventually. Thanks for the positive review. He has many insights and he lived in an era where the rules of political correctness were much different. It can be refreshing at times to read authors like Winston Churchill interpret history without all the modern conventions of Absolute Total Equality. Now if you believe in Absolute Total Equality, reading a visionary like Churchill that will be the most frustrating pat.

What is the difference between Stoddard and Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln when it comes to race? Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves, and Lincoln thought black people were the inferior race. Stoddard was against slavery, and he thought it was a brutal and debasing practice for Whites. He was totally against it. Woodrow Wilson was a racist and President at around the same time, yet people still rank him high for his "progressiveness". FDR was a racist extraordinaire, and Harry S. Truman was a member of the KKK at one time, though he quickly got rid of it.

So why is Stoddard singled out? Because he was a scientist, and he didn't believe in Total Human Equality. He is also singled out because largely his demographic predictions have come to pass. That is his worst sin, predicting the demographic future.

I am curious as to what Stoddard got right and what he got wrong after your brief summation. I have read that he predicted a war from the Japanese Empire, which was prescient. Also interested in your "scare quotes" around "white" (or is it White) Peoples. I don't know if we should capitalize that or not. It may be a matter of political correctness, or just a simple function of if you capitalize White people you better capitalize Black people. We live in a society that praises diversity and equality, but never confronts the cognitive dissonance that we can't all be different and also be equal. It is a paradox that will surely be confronted at some time in the future of modern America. Those will be interesting times.

Some people actually say that "White" people do not exist, and that race is just a social construct. Are you one of those people? I find those people interesting, just because I know some "(W)white people" and nobody seems to question whether Black, Asian or Hispanic people exist. Why not "White" people? White people might be the only race that doesn't actually exist.

Stoddard may have been right on his predictions on White people too, just from your small synopsis. White people 100 years ago were nearly a third of the world population. Today they are around 7%. This country was 90% White in 1960, and Whites are going to be a minority in 2042. They are already a minority in babies born today. The future is here. It would be a good time to figure out if this tribal thing matters.

You denigrate Stoddard, but he was a numbers man, and he saw some bad things in the numbers for White People. I happen to agree with that, but he was saying this close to 100 years ago. I haven't read his book, but I would argue that people that believe in his message see our recent history of proof of his prognostication. He was on to third world immigration in the 1920s. He held sway in the immigration laws that went from the 1920s to 1965.

After 1965 we have had massive third world immigration, and now White people are going to be a minority. To Stoddard, that is a bad thing. To your children, that might actually not work out so well either. People have been tribal for tens of thousands of years, why stop now? How are Whites doing in South Africa? They are getting killed every day.

It might not be good for White people to have other people in charge, especially if those people do not like White people. Minorities in this country have suffered and it has been documented. That is not unique. Minorities tend to suffer everywhere.

[Emp]

It might not be good for White people to have other people in charge, especially if those people do not like White people. Minorities in this country have suffered and it has been documented. That is not unique. Minorities tend to suffer everywhere.

Not quite correct. It might not be good for the Haves to have "other people", i.e. the HaveNots, in charge. Hence the substitution of democracy with the plutocracy of the Haves, i.e. the Rich. Attacks on the registration of the HaveNots to vote, to participate in the formulation of economic policy, and the inundation of the political process with obscene amounts of cash will eventually assure that in the US, as it has in most other unregulated banana and oil republics. When that doesn't work, the army or the police take care of things. It's happening in Syria, Russia, right now.

Breed like rabbits, indeed. The chief international proponent of that strategy is, perversely, the Catholic Church. Just make babies, lotsa Catholic babies.......but forget the liberation theology.

[Roach]

Breed like rabbits, indeed. The chief international proponent of that strategy is, perversely, the Catholic Church. Just make babies, lotsa Catholic babies.......but forget the liberation theology.

Way to conclude an otherwise cogent, well-reasoned response with an accusatory non sequitur.

First, the Church does not advocate having lots of babies. It simply prohibits the use of birth control. It is not sinful to limit your family to whatever size your means, whether financial or otherwise, allow. My parents wanted 4 children, used exclusively NFP, and never once had a mishap. Using NFP does not equate to having an enormous family; it simply equates to not using artificial birth control.

Second, your assertions about liberation theology are nothing but a regurgitation of the tired mantra South American Marxists have been trumpeting for the past 40 years. Rather than re-hash a previous post of mine on the topic in a different thread, I'll simply paste it here. Additionally, feel free to question my credentials to speak on the matter, but I took several classes on the subject in both college and grad school, and as a member of the lay apostolate Communion and Liberation (CL), I've read a great deal of literature about the Church's official response to liberation theology (although CL technically predates the rise of liberation theology).


Liberation theology was not rejected because it "sought to subvert Church hierarchy"; rather, it was rejected because it is predicated on the faulty notion that a person's earthly liberation is of greater contemporary importance than his or her eternal salvation. Central to liberation theology is the notion that one cannot talk to the poor about God until they have food, shelter, water and all basic necessities. It's the "give a man a meal, then talk about Jesus" idea taken to extremes. Why "extremes"? Because the "feed them first" mentality is ideologically central to liberation theology, and because the framework fails to deliver on its own promises, social needs are given indefinite centrality, and God is thereby marginalized, never really entering the equation. While liberation theology calls for seemingly laudable goals of governmental and economic equality for the poor, the varieties they advocate are inconsistent with our conventional understandings of the terms. So how is this "governmental and economic equality" they demand different? Well, it's different in that it fails to recognize what the world has repeatedly learned over the past century - Marxism doesn't work. Liberation theology, in a political sense, is a thinly-veiled instrument for advocating Marxism through a wholesale governmental and economic takeover, by force if necessary. In certain parts of Latin America in the 1980s, there were even armed priest-guerillas who were active in Marxist militias, and presumably even killed.

The Church's beef with Liberation Theology has never been that we shouldn't feed, clothe, shelter, dignify or otherwise assist the poor. This has been central to Christian moral teaching from the time Jesus walked among us. And obviously any sane person of Christian character would support societal changes that best ensure the everyone has the basic necessities of life. No matter how well we do in this regard, however, the poor will always be with us, and liberation theology will never get around to God. The Church is absolutely correct in asserting that Christianity must begin and end with Christ as its center. Liberation theology woefully fails in this regard.

And make no mistake about it, several of the most influential supporters of Liberation Theology have openly stated their advocacy for Marxism, as well as their belief that religion must begin with earthly liberation before turning any specific attention to Christ. In fact, on account of his unrepentent advocacy of Marxism and hostile governmental takeover, and his hailing them as being of greater importance than the Church itself, noted liberation theologian and former Franciscan Leonardo Boff was publicly silenced for a year by JPII in 1985. When he later republished the same arguments in 1992, he was again silenced and instructed that further violations would result in public excommunication. Instead, Boff voluntarily left the priesthood and the Catholic Church altogether.

Admittedly, lingering preoccupation with Jesus Christ and eternal salvation amidst abject poverty and other urgent social problems can reach the level of willful blindness, especially to the extent it interferes with the Christian call to charity. At the same time, if a poor, dying unbeliever is at your doorstep, approaching certain death, you're not going to give him food; you're going to try to give him Christ, which only highlights the fact that the greatest need of the human soul is not food, water, shelter, or good governance; rather, it is union with God. And this is something that liberation theology gets very, very wrong ...

Another problem with liberation theology's elevation of "earthly liberation" to a position of primacy is that the Church has never required belief or adherence to the Catholic faith as a prerequisite for its charity. The Church's mission to the poor and oppressed exists by virtue of its Faith, not the other way around. Christ motivates the work of the Church to all persons, irrespective of religious affiliation or other personal characteristics. To suggest that the Church should pursue earthly goals before eternal goals is putting the cart before the horse. The Church should always be an advocate for the poor, even publicly, but this advocacy must be couched in the faith, and it is not inappropriate for the poor and oppressed to hear that the charity they receive stems from their benefactors' belief in God. This is where conventional liberation theology disagrees with the Church.

[Roach]

As an addendum, I would mention that I think that liberation theology arose on account of the failures of the Latin American Church in previous generations. For example, until the 1950s, the military dictatorship in Brazil went so far as to outlaw any attempt to educate the poor. And the Church? It was still largely aristocratic and kowtowed to the ruling military. The government upheaval, in most ways, both created and exacerbated the plight of the poor, and the Church was largely, though not completely, silent. This was a chronic problem throughout much of Latin America.

While the goals of early liberation theology were certainly laudable (e.g. equality for the poor and their elevation out of imposed poverty), the means suggested for achieving them were not, and indefensible theological arguments were wrapped into these means. Marxism doesn't work, and it's certainly not appropriate for priests to take up arms to violently establish it. At any rate, the Church's failure to be an effective advocate and caretaker of the poor in conjunction with the systemic political problems are what led to liberation theology in the first place. Had the Church been doing what it should have all along, it never would have become the problem that it did.