Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you keep trying to over simplify a complex issue. For your information the sterilization programs of the 1920's had their roots in Eugenics which was a very politically and racially charged movement now considered a pseudo-science. Many people (estimated at around 100,000) in places like Appalachia were sterilized simply for having below average IQ scores. There was a strong racial and class elitism component to this movement and many, including myself, see it as a dark chapter in U.S. history.
You do realize we still have what amounts to eugenics programs still going on. Do you think these programs are evil? Do you think eliminating some of the negative genes from the gene pool is a bad idea? There is something called a "violent gene", it greatly increases your chances of violent behavior, should we get rid of it? I don't understand the objections, outside of the slippery slope argument.
I simply don't see any of these programs having overall bad results. Most of the objections tend to be based more on their bias towards racism than anything else.
Hitler hated jews, but he didn't exactly discriminate against his own people either, he sterilized and killed plenty of them. Sure its terrible and unchristian, but is it really bad?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-06-2010 at 12:49 AM..
You do realize we still have what amounts to eugenics programs still going on. Do you think these programs are evil? Do you think eliminating some of the negative genes from the gene pool is a bad idea? There is something called a "violent gene", it greatly increases your chances of violent behavior, should we get rid of it? I don't understand the objections, outside of the slippery slope argument.
I simply don't see any of these programs having overall bad results. Most of the objections tend to be based more on their bias towards racism than anything else.
Hitler hated jews, but he didn't exactly discriminate against his own people either. Sure its terrible and unchristian, but is it really bad?
I'm unaware of any eugenics programs continuing to this day. Please enlighten me (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way). As far as the existence of the so called "violence gene" I'm very skeptical. Over 98 percent of human genetic material is called "Junk DNA" simply because they can't figure out what it's purpose is. Our understanding in this field is still in it's infancy and I don't think we yet have either the "know how" or the wisdom necessary to make the kind of judgements that you seem to be championing.
I'm unaware of any eugenics programs continuing to this day. Please enlighten me (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way). As far as the existence of the so called "violence gene" I'm very skeptical. Over 98 percent of human genetic material is called "Junk DNA" simply because they can't figure out what it's purpose is. Our understanding in this field is still in it's infancy and I don't think we yet have either the "know how" or the wisdom necessary to make the kind of judgements that you seem to be championing.
There aren't forced sterilizations, but we have what still amounts to eugenics. Planned parenthood started out as basically a eugenics program, and its policies havn't exactly changed over the years. Black women still are extremely overrepresented in their number of abortions. In some areas people provide assistance for poor women to get their tubes tied(especially right after pregnancy).
There has been increasingly more interest in ways to limit welfare recipients ability to have more children, there have been several attempts to pass legislation.
It is true that there is no forced sterilization or forced abortions. But the people that generally fund any programs for either privately, generally are doing so on the basis of eugenics.
I'm not sure what the future will hold, as cash-strapped states have been looking for ways to cut expenses. Some of the measures being proposed are trying to basically "bribe" women and men to get sterilized. Either by money, or shortened prison sentences.
There aren't forced sterilizations, but we have what still amounts to eugenics. Planned parenthood started out as basically a eugenics program, and its policies havn't exactly changed over the years. Black women still are extremely overrepresented in their number of abortions. In some areas people provide assistance for poor women to get their tubes tied(especially right after pregnancy).
There has been increasingly more interest in ways to limit welfare recipients ability to have more children, there have been several attempts to pass legislation.
It is true that there is no forced sterilization or forced abortions. But the people that generally fund any programs for either privately, generally are doing so on the basis of eugenics.
I'm not sure what the future will hold, as cash-strapped states have been looking for ways to cut expenses. Some of the measures being proposed are trying to basically "bribe" women and men to get sterilized. Either by money, or shortened prison sentences.
Believe me, I'm all for the ideas and policies of Planned Parenthood. I lived in Washigton D.C. for 2 years and Atlanta, GA for 5 years and as such I saw countless examples of the stereotypical "Welfare Mamma" bleeding the system dry. I even witnessed them bragging about it sayings things like " I haven't worked in 8 years."
I have little sympathy for these people. When I was growing up my mother occasionally leaned on the system for food stamps, but she went to night school and became a paralegal. She basically pulled herself up by the bootstraps and got off of the dole. Welfare should only be an emergency resource to be used as a stepping stone to independence. Too many people abuse the system.
In the past the United States has had government programs which forcefully sterilized violent criminals and the mentally ill. They were based on the idea that the mental impairments, such as schizophrenia, were largely genetic. And that violent criminals were violent largely caused by genes that might inclinate them into more aggressive behavior(such as the "violent" gene that has been identified recently).
Since these people had basically lost their rights under our constitution, a great number of these people were forcefully sterilized.
While I understand the knee-jerk reaction that this was a abridgement to personal liberty, and I do agree for ethical reasons.
My question is simply, if you understand the genetic connection of mental illness and violent/impulsive behavior, do you believe it was a good public-safety policy for us to carry out these forced-sterilizations? And do you believe that the forced-sterilizations that did occur, had an overall positive effect on the rest of humanity?
Ah, Laughlin was an evil SOB. No, these did not have a positive effect. In fact, the US eugenics movement made Hitler quite jealous because the US was able to legalize it. So, no, not a good idea. And it wasn't a knee jerk reaction. It was a methodical process.
Isn't it funny that when these ideas are proposed, the person doing the proposing always sees themselves in the role of the executioner.
On August 27th 1971 a women by the name of : Sharon Lee Adams, age 16, gave birth to a baby girl named Alissa Michelle Adams. Sharon born in Las Vegas to : William & Eleanor Adams in 1955, was a 16 year high school student who had befriened a Mark Christopher Thompson and a year later was a single mother that would NEVER becoming pregnant again because she was among a handful of unfortunate patients at Needles Hospital in 1971 that a Doctor who was part of a program to sterilize whom ever they felt was a good candidate based on the fact she was a single mother or was it she was a embarassment for whatever reason it was it was never a choice to Sharon nor did they inform her or her parents what they had done after giving birth to Alissa. Sharon died at the age of 52. Her daughter Alissa intends to look into this matter. If you have any thoughts, knowledge or suspicision of this program at Neeles Hospital in Needles, California from 1970-1975 please post it hear.
In the past the United States has had government programs which forcefully sterilized violent criminals and the mentally ill. They were based on the idea that the mental impairments, such as schizophrenia, were largely genetic. And that violent criminals were violent largely caused by genes that might inclinate them into more aggressive behavior(such as the "violent" gene that has been identified recently).
Since these people had basically lost their rights under our constitution, a great number of these people were forcefully sterilized.
While I understand the knee-jerk reaction that this was a abridgement to personal liberty, and I do agree for ethical reasons.
My question is simply, if you understand the genetic connection of mental illness and violent/impulsive behavior, do you believe it was a good public-safety policy for us to carry out these forced-sterilizations? And do you believe that the forced-sterilizations that did occur, had an overall positive effect on the rest of humanity?
there aren't forced sterilizations, but we have what still amounts to eugenics. Planned parenthood started out as basically a eugenics program, and its policies havn't exactly changed over the years. Black women still are extremely overrepresented in their number of abortions. In some areas people provide assistance for poor women to get their tubes tied(especially right after pregnancy).
There has been increasingly more interest in ways to limit welfare recipients ability to have more children, there have been several attempts to pass legislation.
It is true that there is no forced sterilization or forced abortions. But the people that generally fund any programs for either privately, generally are doing so on the basis of eugenics.
I'm not sure what the future will hold, as cash-strapped states have been looking for ways to cut expenses. Some of the measures being proposed are trying to basically "bribe" women and men to get sterilized. Either by money, or shortened prison sentences.
not true: There are forced sterilization cases in 1971 in needles california read my post and research it you will learn more.
ok while it goes way against personal liberties I can't really argue any of these people have the right to reproduce... but I'm afraid I don't see a reason the person on welfare should be allowed to produce yet another child they can't afford.
Wow. Do you go to church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
While we are operating what about castration of rapist? Hope they are all really guilty otherwise we will have some serious issues.
Yes, it might be good to check.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
