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.
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.
a930girl, you should start a new thread for replies about the Needles, California hospital -- ask a moderator which forum would be best.
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).
The key word there is "poor," not "black." About tubal ligation, do you mean some outfits try to persuade the mother based on her income or her race?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
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.
True about the private funding programs. There probably are illegal sterilizations, tubal ligations and abortions being conducted in prisons and mental hospitals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
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.
By the states, or state-supported? Could you give links?
Since not all people who might genetically be more prone to become violent due to some pseudo-violent gene actually do become violent, there are obviously other factors involved as well. One can't kill off or prevent people just for the illusion to be on the safe side when most anybody can become violent under certain circumstances.
I don't like that obsession with forcing perfection on humans when they never will be perfect.
What's mental illness anyway? Depression or outright handicap? Where to draw the line?
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?
Not all mental illnesses are hereditary. A better policy would be to over-turn the ACLU sponsored court rulings that bar forced treatment for the mentally ill. When under competent psychiatric treatment and on a regiment of medication, the mentally ill can be highly productive members who participate in society. Nothing would be gained by sterilizing them.
Executing criminals would be cheaper than sterilizing them, plus ensure that they no longer engage in criminal activity.
I understand that some people might view that as harsh, but an equally cheaper alternative is to revoke their citizenship, give them $10, a brown-bag lunch and a parachute, and kick them out of a C-130 flying over the Sudan.
The savings realized from the cost-benefit would be tremendous, as prisons could be closed and polices forces could be reduced in size and the tax dollars allocated elsewhere.
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).
Those are voluntary and private programs, not state sponsored eugenics programs, and being that they are voluntary they are perfectly constitutional. Skinner v. Oklahoma banned state sponsored sterilizations in the US.
Quote:
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.
And such legislation would be constitutionally questionable due to Skinner v. Oklahoma, though I don't think the SCOTUS has ruled specifically on whether sterilization as a condition of recieving welfare benefits is constitutional.
I read that George H.W. Bush wanted to advocate a "one child policy" on the Chinese model in the US, but Gerald Ford nixed the idea, saying that it would have been unconstitutional even though reducing population growth was a desirable goal ; the Constitution came first no matter how laudable the aim of any program was.
Quote:
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.
Not the same thing.
Quote:
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.
IMO positive incentives WOULD be constitutional under Skinner, given that there'd be a possibility to refuse. Negative incentives - i.e. forced incentives - would NOT be constitutional. But the SCOTUS has not ruled specifically on this issue.
Since not all people who might genetically be more prone to become violent due to some pseudo-violent gene actually do become violent, there are obviously other factors involved as well. One can't kill off or prevent people just for the illusion to be on the safe side when most anybody can become violent under certain circumstances.
I don't like that obsession with forcing perfection on humans when they never will be perfect.
What's mental illness anyway? Depression or outright handicap? Where to draw the line?
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my mother about heaven and hell.
I told her I did not believe there could possibly be a hell. Why?
Because some people because of their genes or because of their environment are far more tempted to do bad things than others. The people who basically are born with "passive" genes, in a wealthy family, kept far from the temptations of the world, and who died at a relatively young age would be practically automatically rewarded in heaven. Where the people born with violent genes in the slums of the world would be far more likely to end up in hell.
Blacks commit murder at about seven times the rate of whites. Why do you think this is? Do you think every black murderer should be condemned to eternity in hell?
We are not born equal, we never have and we never will. I find it interesting that anyone who proposes equality has such a desire to prevent the only course of action that could ever produce equality. While also making our streets safer for our children.
There is a reason men are larger than women. They were never meant to be equal. In the species where men and women play equal roles, the men and women are roughly the same size.
As for eugenics, I don't like it because it could be used for evil via the slippery slope. But that doesn't mean that if it were properly limited that it wouldn't do humanity a great good.
Of course, the same can be said for the future of genetic research, such as gene knock-in/knock-out. But most people think things like "nobel sperm banks" are ridiculous and unethical. To me, they are brilliant.
Since not all people who might genetically be more prone to become violent due to some pseudo-violent gene actually do become violent, there are obviously other factors involved as well. One can't kill off or prevent people just for the illusion to be on the safe side when most anybody can become violent under certain circumstances.
I don't like that obsession with forcing perfection on humans when they never will be perfect.
What's mental illness anyway? Depression or outright handicap? Where to draw the line?
Excellent post. And there are ramifications which would do nothing but harm as well. I'm bipolar2, no meds, just the right environment. It works. My greatest desire is to be left alone. I showed signs of being "moody" all my life but was never diagnoses until mid-life, and even then it was diagnosed as depression.
I can trace a lot of the things which did not go well in my life to decisions based on being manic or depressed. I suspected long before but did not want a label. But since its here I'll wear it because we should not be *afraid* of seeking help and learning how to live our sometimes *different* lives.
That is the essense here, *different*. I don't see the world through a non-bp set of eyes. Its brighter and has more defination and I can go to the place I'm writing about when I write stories. The greatest danger to someone bi-polar is themself, not anyone else. There is a higher rate of sucide than for things like depression, but little correlation to dangerous behavior to others. I was utterly floored when I first read this thread because I thought we had gotten past this madness.
But my great grandmother was clearly bipolar. And my mom clearly suffered from depression all her life. Did she seek any treatment? Would you have when it was like branding you on the forehead and possibly abrigating rights?
My son might or might not show symptoms. It's entirely unknown. But since its not "a secret" if so he can get help early when it does more.
And remember that ptsd can trigger mental illness, and blows to the head, and certain toxins too. And so what do we do to prevent those things? Can't do a dna test for that. Sorry about that concussive brain injury for the roadside bomb but we have this problem since you can't function too well now. Gotta figure out something to do with you now. Yes, sarcasm but like others have said, where do you draw the line if you go beyond a simple NO?
The Nazi eratication of those with mental problems has been mentioned already. But it was the first thing that came to mind when I read this and I was stunned that it was so lightly tossed out as an idea and agreed about. Didn't history teach us anything?
It would be really nice to think that we have enough intellegence to recognize that there are NO simple answers and those involving removal of rights based on some standard are the wrong ones. Just look down the road. We are not our experience entirely nor our genes nor our environment. We are All of those things.
Yes, I'm all for chlorinating violent criminals out of the gene pool. If not sterilizing them outright, we could just put a V-chip in them that violently electrocutes them every time they're aroused/angry.
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.
The key word there is "poor," not "black." About tubal ligation, do you mean some outfits try to persuade the mother based on her income or her race?
