Eugenics Anyone?

Eugenics rears its head over and over again, usually either as some horrible social experiment gone wrong, or outright genocide and ethnic cleansing. But is it a flawed concept, or is it merely the execution that is flawed?

Here are some scenarios for consideration. I’m sure you can tell which way I’m leaning by the setting, but I’m interested in hearing thoughts and alternatives.

A man has six children from four different women, all of whom he refuses to support. All efforts at child support enforcement have failed. Should he be allowed to reproduce again?

A mother of three children has allegations of child abuse placed on her, but she changes locations just in time that social services can not follow up. She has done this several times in the past. One day, her child goes to school with a cigarette burn on his arm, and there are now criminal charges. As it turns out, all three children have been severely neglected, both physically and emotionally. It also turns out that she lost custody of one child in another state ten years before. Should she be allowed to reproduce?

A woman is convicted of prostituting her 11 year old daughter to men. Should she be allowed to reproduce?

A man is convicted of taking indecent liberties with 3 children. He has been a suspect in several other sex offenses against children, but moves from place to place. He gets out of prison and marries a woman who began a relationship with him through the mail. She wants a family of her own. Should he be allowed to reproduce?

Like I said, I think you can see which way I’m leaning on this. None of these scenarios are exaggerations, and are all actually quite common. I’m hoping someone out there can come up with some brilliant social policy.

.
.
.
Such behaviour does not just happen in a vaccuum.

Why not treat the cause(s) rather than the effect(s)?

Could it be that the cause(s) are too profitable?

Please explain to me the causation of pedophelia, serial reproduction, and child abuse, and how it effects a market economy in such a way as that the proffits gained would preclude its cessation. Please rationalize what "cause" excuses a mother from prostiting her child. Can a person with that kind of decision making capability be trusted with the safety of child?

Not to be argumentative, but all of the studies of "cause" in the past decades have done nothing but give us more dead trees.

Canada and the US already experimented with forced sterilization, and I seem to recall it didn't turn out very well. This is why I don't agree with the concept of compulsory sterilization:

When Leilani Muir was in her twenties a doctor told she would never be able to have children. She was unware that in 1959, at the age of fourteen, she had been sexually sterilized under the Alberta government's Sterilization Act. Leilani says, "[the doctor] said my insides looked like I'd been through a slaughterhouse. Those were his exact words."

Around her 11th birthday she had been admitted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives in Alberta and was given a single IQ test. This was enough, apparently, to determine that she would qualify for sterilization.

www.canadiancontent.ca...

I don't think humans are evolved enough to start monkeying around with this kind of thing.

Originally posted by Duzey
Canada and the US already experimented with forced sterilization, and I seem to recall it didn't turn out very well.

You're right on that one. The difference here is that it would be based on behaviors, not genetics. That goal was to "clense" the gene pool, which is an abominable notion. What I'm thinking of is a way to prevent victimization, and the reproduction of learned behaviors.

On kind of a sidebar, regardless of your view of captial punishment, would you view eugenics as more or less intrusive than the death penalty? Or on the same par?

If it was based on behaviours instead of genetics then that would move it from the realm of eugenics into one of crime and punishment. Which, I suppose, is where your next question is leading.

I would put it on par with the use of the death penalty. Equally as invasive and irreversible. It would be something I would tolerate as a choice given to prisoners, but not something I could support if it was imposed.

First and foremosst : Economic Rationalization for allowing horrible people to continue having children: LAW ENFORCEMENT!!! Its that simple....there are BILLIONS of dollar spent annually on Law enforcement wether it be actual officers prosecutors weapons unifroms training flak jackets.....ya following me....Crime pays alot A WHOLE lot. Dont forget Police Stations, Courts, Cars, etc.


Now on to forced sterilzation. I believe that this is a good idea...if its regulated and has lots of oversite.....IQ and all that good crap can NEVER EVER be a factor.....only behaviors....you beat your children you are sterilzed you dont take care of them etc... Id take it a step further... You have multple abortions>2 you are sterilized unless there are mitigating circumstances IE Rape Incest etc....Not i was drunk and forgot to use a condom....

Ideally you wouldnt even have to use docotors.....we have medications now that will forcibly steralize a female....with men i believe that the only method available would be Vasectomy.

Its a good idea forced sterilization but the Christian Fundamental groups would be highly opposed especially Moromons as they would feel this Law was directed at them because of thier religous beliefs.

Any such Eugenics law would face STIFF oppposition from a vareity of sources.....

Originally posted by Duzey
If it was based on behaviours instead of genetics then that would move it from the realm of eugenics into one of crime and punishment. Which, I suppose, is where your next question is leading.

I don't think I see it as punishment, since all that is being denied to them is something they don't want to care for properly anyway. The sex offender registry isn't considered punishment, just protection of the public. Just as the turn to civil commitment of sexual preditors after their time in prison is up is not considered punitive, but a civil affair. Of course, both of those are hotly debated by some.

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
First and foremosst : Economic Rationalization for allowing horrible people to continue having children: LAW ENFORCEMENT!!! Its that simple....there are BILLIONS of dollar spent annually on Law enforcement wether it be actual officers prosecutors weapons unifroms training flak jackets.....ya following me....Crime pays alot A WHOLE lot. Dont forget Police Stations, Courts, Cars, etc.

On this point I have to dissagree. This kind of crime is not the kind that pays, and I promise you that there are a lot of cops who wouldn't stop with sterilization of some of these people if the law allowed it. This is the kind of stuff that is hard to investigate and prosicute from an evidenciary standpoint, and just the process of the state removing children from an abusive home is cumbersome, to say the least.

You have multple abortions>2 you are sterilized unless there are mitigating circumstances IE Rape Incest etc....Not i was drunk and forgot to use a condom....

I hadn't thought of that, and I see your point. But if the goal is to keep people from reproducing a child into horrid conditions, the abortions run sort of parallel. This is also why I like this dialogue. There's all kinds of social pitfalls that need to be thought about, as well as benefits.

Its a good idea forced sterilization but the Christian Fundamental groups would be highly opposed especially Moromons as they would feel this Law was directed at them because of thier religous beliefs.

Quite right! This really ammounts to abortion in some eyes. In one state, though (I think it may have been TX or LA) a woman was offering crack addicted women $200 if they would become sterile (and the proceedure was paid for). There were quite takers, but also quite a few protests, which is where I thought it was rediculous.

I perfer the death penalty.

You whore a child out, you deserve death. You get steralized and your child is taken from you, all you do is find another child and steal them, if you want to keep up your child pimping.

Originally posted by jlc163
I perfer the death penalty.

You whore a child out, you deserve death.

No doubt! But its hard enough to get serial killers put to death, so I don't see an expansion of the death penalty. We can't even keep people who abduct and molest children in prison. I think most of us can agree on what such people deserve.

Originally posted by hogtie
I don't think I see it as punishment, since all that is being denied to them is something they don't want to care for properly anyway.

I do see it as a punishment. We are talking about sterilization in response to a crime or undesirable behaviour. If that isn't punishment, what is?

I look at this as completely different from the sex offenders registry. The registry does not involve the medical alteration of the offender.

Yes, you're right, Duzey. Putting it that way, it is punishment.

As for difference from the sex offender registry, I view it as different only in the physicallity, not the intent.

And I don't mean to get hung up just on sex offenders. If someone is absolutely unable to care for a child, and can't care for the ones that they have, why should they be allowed to have more? This isn't directed specifically at you Duzey, I'm just trying to refocus.

posted by hogtie

Eugenics rears its head again, usually as some social experiment gone wrong, or outright genocide and ethnic cleansing. But is it a flawed concept, or is it merely the execution that is flawed?

Mr H, you cannot discuss eugenics when you put ad hominem in the mix.

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by hogtie

Eugenics rears its head again, usually as some social experiment gone wrong, or outright genocide and ethnic cleansing. But is it a flawed concept, or is it merely the execution that is flawed?

Mr H, you cannot discuss eugenics when you put ad hominem in the mix.

Then I retract whatever it is that will keep you from discussing it. Please feel free to share your opinion.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by hogtie]

Originally posted by donwhite

Mr H, you cannot discuss eugenics when you put ad hominem in the mix.

Would you be so kind as to clarify, donwhite?

Originally posted by hogtie

Originally posted by Duzey
Canada and the US already experimented with forced sterilization, and I seem to recall it didn't turn out very well.

You're right on that one. The difference here is that it would be based on behaviors, not genetics. That goal was to "clense" the gene pool, which is an abominable notion. What I'm thinking of is a way to prevent victimization, and the reproduction of learned behaviors.

Why is it an abominable notion?

Hogtie, you won't get any argument from me that there are just people who shouldn't be allowed to have children. You need a licence for a dog, but they'll let any old nutbar have a kid.

I just don't think that this kind of policy would be a good idea. I don't trust any government (or human being) enough to give them the power to forcibly sterilize people.

We seem fixated on the idea of eugenics as birth control, but there are other aspects of eugenics. What about the idea of pairing couples based on genotypes and phenotypes?

"Eugenics" sure has a bad connotation because of those danged Nazis, but if people would just take an objective look at it, eugenics is something we all do when selecting a potential partner for child-rearing. We try to get the best mate we can -- the healthiest, the best looking, the most financially stable, etc. The large number of ugly, stupid people in the world can certainly be attributed in some part to people not being nearly eugenically selective enough. Also, in the old days of arranged marriages, nobody seemed to mind the local "matchmaker" pairing people up according to their individual traits for the benefit of the community. The notion that the important decision of mate selection should be left up to the bubble-headed 19-year-old girl is actually pretty frightening.

If were up to me, Enkidu Hitler, I would take advantage of the latest technology to temporarily sterilize anyone of breeding age, male and female, until they were old enough, and could prove that they were emotionally and financially capable of raising children. Then we could unhook them and let them go at it at least until they proved themselves again incapable of handling the responsibility.

But of course the minute you start talking about curtailing anybody's reproductive rights, people get all wound up and bent out of shape (probably due to the winding). Suddenly you're every kind of fascist Hitler demon imaginable. The religious will tell you it's against the "be fruitful and multiply" edict from their Grandpa in the Sky, even though every fruit farmer will tell you that unless you periodically trim your trees and vines way back, the fruit you get will be crummy. So you immediately have the Conservatives on your case. The Liberals might be a little warmer to the idea, if it didn't seem so fascistic.

Hey, a lot of stupid people don't even like to spay and neuter their pets, because it's "not natural." So it might be a little difficult to convince them to keep little Bobby and Suzie sterile until they have enough sense and financial resources to raise their kids properly.