Woman with learning difficulties could be forcibly sterilised

Seems like the eugenics movement never really went away, it just went underground for a while. Shall I remind some of you of the forced lobotomies that happened in the 50s (let alone the entire spectre of Nazism that's pretty much become a trite and cliche debate point these days)? There are probably a few of you here who would have been candidates for the procedure back in the day. There are much wider implications to this. Things like this shouldn't even be a consideration except in the most extreme cases, and even then I think the notion of forced sterilization or anything along those lines shouldn't even be on the table in the first place. We really should have moved past this point in society by now.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by ghaleon12

 

she does not need surgery. They can accomplish this by giving her Norplant and putting the tablet under the skin in her arm. There is no need to put her under the knife

If you read the article you will see that they plan on cauterizing her tubes. They plan on going in and making an ireversible change to her body without her consent. There is no discussion of doing this in a non surgical manner,

reply to post by kaleshchand


I saw that in the article. I wonder how long it will be before they start excercising those powers? I find it disturbing that any government has the right to do this. There is a huge leap from vacinations to invasive removal of life. I just don't understand why people think this is okay.

This is still a topic I just can not wrap my mind around. I would love to do a long rant, but the whole idea just boggles my mind.

I support the "forced" sterilizations of the mentally handicapped, low IQ, and those with a disease or condition that can be passed down. I think we need to stop being selfish, an consider the plight of the children.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by TedHodgson

 

When the retarded gal has a child and can not care for it, how about you step up to the plate and adopt it, giving her full access to the child of course. I suppose that the "proper" solution would be to allow her to have children and then have state workers come in and live with her to take care of the child.

Well maybe. I suppose the above would be more "moral" solutions. I don't consider them workable solutions however. I understand your frustration with those who are unable or simply unwilling to make responsible choices. Humans are social animals, and in those societies such individuals can certainly be more drain than contribution so-to-speak. So it makes a sort of sense that society (in theory The Herd), gets some say in who breeds and who doesn't; this makes particular sense (in a modern context) to a beleaguered middle class that is pulling most of the load already. Which is why this idea churns up from the mud and floats to the surface again and again.

However, here is the trouble. Breeding, biologically speaking is rather the point. Most of our myriad intricate interactions and jockeying for position, status, money, and ultimately power, all amount to a base biological drive to secure the best breeding rights, and chance for survival for our offspring. Those who control breeding rights have a great deal of power, and because it is so very basic, primal, and doesn't usually hit the front of the brain as a motivation, this power will be abused. Human beings cannot apply these ideas responsibly. Period.

The Herd usually isn't the one making these decisions anyway when it all comes out in the wash. It is a few individuals in authority positions. Sometimes high ranking government, sometimes judges, and at the end of the day that comes down to the decision of one or a few individuals that will use this idea to impose their idea of idea of what society 'should' be on someone else; these individuals represent cultures of their own after all. They will hedge bets toward their Way Of Life. If this decision is actually in the hands of the general populace the application may be even more haphazard and abusive, while one group tries to secure a stronger position over another "defunct/irresponsible/whatever-the-justification-of-the-moment-is group.

Originally posted by dolphinfanClaim 4th Reich and eugenics all you want. How about thinking about a child who is going to grow up with a retarded mother, or is that just life?

It is Eugenics. There is no "claim" about it. Look it up. Also, as I said, this comes up again and again. The Nazi comparison is a Worst Case Scenario of this abuse of power, which is why people use it frequently. I don't know if this one circumstance would lead to that, but I am heartened that some lessons from history are not forgotten.

And finally... Well yes... It is just life. Get over it.

reply to post by redhorse


Thanks redhorse. Nice post.

...Eugenics Policies, repackaged as "genetics" are unmitigated crap - based on a complete misapprehension of disease and evolution.

...Fact is, life on earth is in big trouble. We are in the middle of the 6th Mass Extinction - and nobody really knows how evolution really works, or who really might be carrying the adaptive mutation that ensures our species' survival. ...It might be this woman's child for all anyone knows.

At this point in human history, those who seem fit and healthy often are not - they evolved to flourish in a world that no longer exists. Once they leave their unnaturally protected 'hygienic' environments and are exposed to the chemical and molecular contaminations that most others live with day-to-day, their adaptive inadequacies become undeniable, and knock them down. For example, many are already infertile.

Nature already has DE-selected many middle-class and rich infertile couples - who use fertility clinics to fight against that very natural de-selection. Why is it okay for them to do that - but not okay to allow procreation in people that nature keeps fertile?

...Time to move over and let nature take its course, imho. I have FAR more faith in natural processes than intellectual rationalizations.

reply to post by redhorse


Many of the "oh no this is eugenics" arguments are pure emotional hysteria.

Its not eugenics. Its common sense. If you cant care for a child, you should not have it. We do not (can not) as a society provide sufficient care for all the children incompetent individuals have and them dump off into society. Many of those children lead awful lives, with an enormous amount of physical and emotional pain. The foster care system is a horror. I grew up in it, and I willingingly chose not to have children because as someone with no family of my own, if anything happened to me, there would be a good chance my own children would end up in that system. Its a nightmare. No one should wish that on anyone.

The problem with many of you "nice people" is you are ignorant as dirt of what that child will have to go through. You dont care about that retarded woman. Liars. You are projecting into the future some slippery slope argument about how if you allow that, it could end up coming back to haunt you, by infringing on YOUR rights. You arent nice at all. Its just thinly veiled self interest.

Many of these "poor retarded people" end up getting raped. And the child they may end up carrying is their rapists child. Just like they cannot give informed consent for sterilization, legally, they cannot give informed consent for sex, either. And low paid workers in the nursing homes and group homes have been know to take advantage of female patients sexually when they are sure they cannot tell. Its a more complex issue than many of the self centered people arguing against sterilizing her make it out to be. You notice the utter lack of concern for what happens to any children she might have.

Just get over it, right? What compassion.

If she cannot care for her child, then it is common sense to keep her from procreating. Parenthood is a big responsibility, and it is not right everyone should have, but should be a privilege taken from people like this. Procreation anarchy needs to be stopped.

For the most part, without miracles to wake up the leaders and show them they are living a lie, in distortions thinking they are our jailers and higher ups doing the will of who they call God as catalysts, they have already done some pretty hard core things, and will have a harder time when their memories return than most of us, when the tests are over.

But....we have to realize something. The leaders are the bullies who are mistreating the children in the playground. Like all bullies, they only have power if we let them. When we allow bullies to mistreat others we are making a choice, its like casting a vote, and in this interactive school, we are drawing in those like frequencies, or the wrong things and consequences our way.

In the short run, cause and effect is pretty obvious. We don't speak up. We don't wake up our towns with an awareness group. We don't rally the citizens to make a huge outcry and line up at their public offices iwth bullhorns by the millions and not leave until the corruptions all gone, and we WIN THE PRIZE of having fasism, cruelty, and slavery, in a worse form than the current one even, because WE CHOSE IT.

So, what do we want to choose? What do we want?

reply to post by MikeNice81

It looks like Hitler made it across the Channel after all. Eugenics was the center piece of his grand plan.

Oh Eugenics is very much alive and well. Why else did the USA have sterilization laws into the 1970's. Why else have "tetanus vacines" contained ingredients to sterilize third world women. Why else did the USDA fund the resceach that developed Spermicidal corn? And last why is ist now the law that DNA samples are taken of babies and checked for genetic defects.

www.whale.to...
noblelie.com...
www.easy-dna.com...

In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.

Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.

"We were appalled when we found out," says Brown, who's a registered nurse. "Why do they need to store my baby's DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance."

According to the state of Minnesota's Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.... articles.cnn.com...:HEALTH

reply to post by crimvelvet


Totally different issue from sterilizing one retarded woman who keeps ending up pregnant and unable to care for her children.

Hail the Naziz.
this is just how the germans started it.
when do we put the muslims in the gas chambers and ovens?
is the naziz had won the war.
we would be doing it any way.
and be happy with it!

"NO I am NOT saying that is what I wont. so shout the & up!"

reply to post by buddha


Have you even considered that if she is of limited mental ability that she was unable to make a reasonable choice to have sex in the first place?

There is a reasonable probability that this woman was raped.

The Nazi's did that as well

To the people claiming this is eugenics, read the definition of eugenics. Eugenics criterion to reproductive selection is based on the quality of the genome, NOT ability to take care of the children. While these things are correlated, they are not the same.

reply to post by Maslo


You are right, this isnt eugenics. Although some people sure love slippery slope arguments that take you there in one fell swoop.

Its a reasonable decision to make for a woman who apparently keeps ending up pregnant and cannot care for the children. People who are mentally incompetent have medical decisions made for them all the time, every day. The only reason this one is getting cries of Nazism and Eugenics is because people are incredibly paranoid about their right to breed. For no logical reason. There are tons, millions, billions of people walking this earth. Clearly, no one is preventing people from breeding in any significant way.

Originally posted by Maslo
To the people claiming this is eugenics, read the definition of eugenics. Eugenics criterion to reproductive selection is based on the quality of the genome, NOT ability to take care of the children.

I'm sorry no. Eugenics IS a social program, not a genetic one, and barely a scientific one. It began that way at its inception, and has been practiced that way every time it is applied. I would counter that eugenics is defined first by societal perceptions and by science second (if at all.) For example (and I do not know if it is the case with the woman in question) but there are circumstances where "the ability to take care of ones children" is a determination made by societal perceptions and not actual ability.

Originally posted by MasloWhile these things are correlated, they are not the same.

Compulsory sterilization is being used as a method to ensure that this woman with undesirable traits no longer breeds and further drains society. That is eugenics.

"eu·gen·ics   /yuˈdʒɛnɪks/ Show Spelled
[yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA

–noun ( used with a singular verb )
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).


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

Medical Dictionary


eu·gen·ics definition
Pronunciation: /y u̇ -ˈjen-iks/
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc."

It says nothing about the "quality of the genome". I will concede that it does say "genetic defects"; however it also says "presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits". This is a very broad definition, and this is where the trouble really starts.

Eugenics is a social application of an attempt to breed desirable traits, or breed out undesirable ones in human beings.DNA tests to determine quality or lack, are not required, or even used. It is based on a social perception that can include heritable physical defects, but can (has, and inevitably will) also include the categorization of behavior. This last bit is the important one. It's not just physical defects, or even downs syndrome, or various forms of congenital retardation, it can (has, and inevitably will) include simple behavioral anomalies such as being female and prone to pre-marital sex (for example). The perception of how damaging certain behaviors are, are defined by the society at the time, and adherence (or lack-there-of) to such societal protocols may or may not be determined by genomes.

Also, please not that the entire philosophy and the word to define it were coined before we could even conceive of ways to determine desirable or undesirable traits on a genetic level.

"1883 coined by Eng. scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Gk. eugenes "well-born, of good stock," from eu- "good" + genos "birth" (see genus).
"The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced." [Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883] "

"Genos" as in "birth". Please note.

Eugenics began as a social perspective first. My point is not that we can determine some traits and possibly breed or not breed them, my point is that eugenics historically did not begin, and isn't used that way. It isn't used as a concise, scientifically based, medical method to improve the human race, it is used as a social program to control breeding and produce "men of a high type" as defined by a select few, and because of this it will always be abused.

As an example please see "Buck vs. Bell"

Carrie Buck

reply to post by crimvelvet


Crim what does any of that have to do with the subject at hand? Somebody makes mention of a problem in the UK and you need to bring up something about the US. Do you feel better now that you have gotten your shot in?

Eugenics laws were on the books untill the 1970s. In most of the country the practices were ended by the 1950s. Many states have actually set up funds to pay these people back for mental and physical damage done.

I will look in to the DNA database. I have not read about that. I fail to see how it applies here though. According to the article you posted it is currently being challenged in court though. So, it is an issue being addressed as we type. America has made great advances in moving away from Eugenics. We tend to believe the government should stay off of people's body. Witht he exception of vaccines, I can't think of a case where the people haven't fought to keep the law off of the body, when they knew what was happening.

reply to post by redhorse


Then what is happening to the woman even after your argument, is not eugenics.

She is not being sterilized to keep her retarded genes from the population. Her retarded genes are already in the population, and we have no way of knowing if any of the children she has already borne, are retarded. For all we know her children may be perfectly normal and her retardation not congenital.

She is being sterilized because she keeps having babies she cant care for. And she is too disabled to make medical decisions for herself.

Not one of you bleeding hearts would cry eugenics or Nazism if the decision being made without her consent was one that was saving her life. If she came in unconscious, off the street, her leg so badly mangled they had to amputate immediately to save her life, none of you would be crying about that. Because the fact of the matter is that medical decisions are made all the time without the persons consent. If the patient is unable, a parent or spouse normally does, but if no parent or spouse is available, there are all sorts of other ways, including court orders, that medical decisions are made for those who cannot decide for themselves.

This isnt about her genes and no amount of wishing it were will make it so.

reply to post by redhorse

I'm sorry no. Eugenics IS a social program, not a genetic one, and barely a scientific one. It began that way at its inception, and has been practiced that way every time it is applied. I would counter that eugenics is defined first by societal perceptions and by science second (if at all.) For example (and I do not know if it is the case with the woman in question) but there are circumstances where "the ability to take care of ones children" is a determination made by societal perceptions and not actual ability.

Nope, eugenics is a genetic program, there is no question about that. The basis of eugenics is to stop undesirable traits to be passed on, and to promote the reproduction of people with desirable heritable traits. Whether it is scietific or effective is another question, but the definition of eugenics is clear, and this case is NOT an example of eugenics, because heritability is not a concern here.

Compulsory sterilization is being used as a method to ensure that this woman with undesirable traits no longer breeds and further drains society. That is eugenics.

No, compulsory sterilization is being used as a method to ensure that this woman with undesirable mental capacity no longer breeds, and further drains society and her future children. That is not eugenics, no genetic element needs to be present, the same thing would be done even to a genetically healthy woman mentally disabled for example by an accident or a disease.

genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

genetic defects, inheritable traits..
This case is NOT eugenics, it does not fulfill the definition you posted.