NationStates Jolt Archive

i am really tired and want to go to bed but i really have to get this out there.

a woman is currently giving birth to her 6th child she is mentally unstable and as we are speaking a child's protection agency agent is entering her hospital operation room in order to take the newborn child from her. what should we do? sterilize mentally dificient people so they cant reproduce? "steal" theyr babies they have worked so hard for(9 months of pregnancy + labor). or let them evolve and grow as social outcasts or what ever they turn out to be.

i will read proper etiquette tomorow and clean this up snoooooooze.

i am really tired and want to go to bed but i really have to get this out there.

a woman is currently giving birth to her 6th child she is mentally unstable and as we are speaking a child's protection agency agent is entering her hospital operation room in order to take the newborn child from her. what should we do? sterilize mentally dificient people so they cant reproduce? "steal" theyr babies they have worked so hard for(9 months of pregnancy + labor). or let them evolve and grow as social outcasts or what ever they turn out to be.

i will read proper etiquette tomorow and clean this up snoooooooze.

OOC: I'm pretty certain this is the wrong forum. I'll make a topic in moderation to have it moved for you.

As always, the child's welfare is paramount. If this woman is incapable of providing a safe, stable home for her infant, and there is no relative who is willing to take on the responsibility of caring for the mentally deficient woman and her offspring, and the woman is unfit for even being in a "halfway house" situation, then to protect the infant it must be removed.

Sucks, doesn't it?

As far as I know, forced sterilization is against the law.

Unfortunately, if the woman is mentally incapable of providing for her child, then the state must intervene in order to protect the welfare of the newborn. As the state cannot force-sterilize a person, they are left with no other recourse than to remove the child once she gives birth.

A more pertinent question would be, who is continually impregnating this woman? Surely, if she is mentally incapable of providing for her child, it's not a stretch to believe she might be mentally incapable of consenting to sex. Where are the father(s) of these six children?

Anyone who fucks her should be charged with statutory rape. I'd be down with forcing her to be sterilized. Some people just shouldn't breed, three strikes and the state fixes the problem.

If it didn't cause some kind of visceral disgust in my stomach, I wouldn't have a problem with sterilising men and women who abuse or neglect their first child. As it is, I think that in a perfect world people would be sterilised at birth and only allowed to have children once some kind of test was passed.

But then, I probably wouldn't pass such a test, and I want kids one day.

If it didn't cause some kind of visceral disgust in my stomach, I wouldn't have a problem with sterilising men and women who abuse or neglect their first child. As it is, I think that in a perfect world people would be sterilised at birth and only allowed to have children once some kind of test was passed.

But then, I probably wouldn't pass such a test, and I want kids one day.

And their's the catch. How do we determine who's fit to have kids? Who sets the criteria? We went through that eugenics shit. We're well rid of it.

Also, doesn't sterilization share a particular problem with the Death Penalty, in that its permanent and thus their's no way to undo the mistake if someone is wrongfully convicted? Perhaps depending on the method used?

Anyone who fucks her should be charged with statutory rape. I'd be down with forcing her to be sterilized. Some people just shouldn't breed, three strikes and the state fixes the problem.

Do you know anything about this woman's particular mental condition? On what grounds are you qualified to assume that inability to raise a kid = inability to give consent? What exact condition does she have? That would determine weather she can give consent.

People born with mental handicaps (or, if you want to extend it, genetic defects in general) should not be allowed to reproduce, because they will spread their inferior genes throughout the genepool, thus making the human race weaker overall. In "natural" circumstances, these people would not live long enough to reproduce and spread their inferior seed. With our advances in medicine and care for the retarded, we have almost brought natural selection to a halt, and this will ultimately end up bad for humanity as a species.

On the other hand...

Everyone should have the right to life, and the right to reproduce. Who are we to say that someone should be denied their fundamental rights as a living organism?

Also, doesn't sterilization share a particular problem with the Death Penalty, in that its permanent and thus their's no way to undo the mistake if someone is wrongfully convicted? Perhaps depending on the method used?

Depends on the methods used. Tying the Fallopian tubes is one way of doing so without making it permanent, at least not permanent under any competent surgery.

Depends on the methods used. Tying the Fallopian tubes is one way of doing so without making it permanent, at least not permanent under any competent surgery.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Tied tubes fuse together after about one month; while there is a reversal procedure, it is less than 50% successful, as most of the time the tubes scar so badly aterwards as to block the reopened channels. There's an experimental procedure to replace the damaged area with artificial lining which is promising, but it's far from being generally available.

Everyone should have the right to life, and the right to reproduce. Who are we to say that someone should be denied their fundamental rights as a living organism?
People who will have to pay for raising the child on welfare or in state facilities?

A more pertinent question would be, who is continually impregnating this woman? Surely, if she is mentally incapable of providing for her child, it's not a stretch to believe she might be mentally incapable of consenting to sex. Where are the father(s) of these six children?

Excellent question indeed.

and the right to reproduce.

Why is that a right instead of a privilege ?

People who will have to pay for raising the child on welfare or in state facilities?

Ignoring the existance of society, every living being has the right to life and the right to reproduce. There is nothing in nature that mandates people to help the less fortunate or the less capable. That is something we have constructed.

You can't allow a child to be neglected, and you can't go around mutilating people's bodies against their will. This leaves us at an impasse; which is why we have these child protection agencies in the first place. Unfortunately it's the best solution to a difficult conundrum.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Tied tubes fuse together after about one month; while there is a reversal procedure, it is less than 50% successful, as most of the time the tubes scar so badly aterwards as to block the reopened channels. There's an experimental procedure to replace the damaged area with artificial lining which is promising, but it's far from being generally available.

Interesting tidbit that. I had thought it reversible.

Ignoring the existance of society, every living being has the right to life and the right to reproduce.
Of course it doesn't. To life, only homo sapiens (and it is something we've constructed); and to reproduce, surely none. Since the advent of [hetero]sexual reproduction, it has always been a privilege, not a right.



Furthermore, 'right to life' and 'right to reproduction' are mutually exclusive concepts. If reproduction is unrestricted, then, as the biotope capacity is exhausted, the right to life cannot exist any more, and lives are destroyed to keep within the biotope capacity.

By all means take the child into care, then find out(as has already been said) who the father/s is/are and suss out the releationship.

I doubt anything could be done to stop this woman getting pregnant(education perhaps?) and it is ethicly unside to force sterlisation on her.

A sticky one to be sure, and you have to feel for these children.

Of course it doesn't. To life, only homo sapiens (and it is something we've constructed); and to reproduce, surely none. Since the advent of [hetero]sexual reproduction, it has always been a privilege, not a right.

Furthermore, 'right to life' and 'right to reproduction' are mutually exclusive concepts. If reproduction is unrestricted, then, as the biotope capacity is exhausted, the right to life cannot exist any more, and lives are destroyed to keep within the biotope capacity.

So you're saying that the right exists to say to someone "you are not allowed to reproduce. You are forbidden from reproducing for whatever reason I deem fit". Right? Because that is what I mean by "right to reproduction" - that we cannot simply say to someone that they are not allowed to reproduce because we deem it so.

And the right to life works on a similiar principle. You don't have the right to tell someone that they should not be allowed to live.

But of course, this doesn't stop people from doing it.

So you're saying that the right exists to say to someone "you are not allowed to reproduce. You are forbidden from reproducing for whatever reason I deem fit". Right?
China did it to reduce overpopulation, 1 child per family.


Because that is what I mean by "right to reproduction" - that we cannot simply say to someone that they are not allowed to reproduce because we deem it so.
A tricky question. "Right to body", correct. But why is it that we can say to people that they are not allowed to take a LSD trip because we deem it so?


And the right to life works on a similiar principle. You don't have the right to tell someone that they should not be allowed to live.
Which is conveniently lifted when they are deemed to have committed a capital offense - which includes treason, not only murder - or on a mass basis in wartime.

So you're saying that the right exists to say to someone "you are not allowed to reproduce. You are forbidden from reproducing for whatever reason I deem fit". Right? Because that is what I mean by "right to reproduction" - that we cannot simply say to someone that they are not allowed to reproduce because we deem it so.

Not exactly. As mentioned, society could also decide not to support reproduction that does not fit the privilige requirements. So if you have the child without sanction, you will not receive any benefits for it. You might in fact be penalised.

Or, if you want to take it further, the child will not be considered part of the society. Let it find its food in the wilderness.

China did it to reduce overpopulation, 1 child per family.

But does that make it right of China to have done it? At the end of my post, I said that it doesn't stop people from doing it. I'm just posing a moral argument.

A tricky question. "Right to body", correct. But why is it that we can say to people that they are not allowed to take a LSD trip because we deem it so?

Why do we take away peoples right to alcohol consumption at their discression when driving? Why do we take away peoples right to poop in nature? Well, we do it because it seems to make society work better. The same is true for the use of drugs. But again, the operative word is 'seems'. Since it's such an objective view. Similiar things could be done for reproductive rights, if they 'seem' to make society work better (as was the case in the China example you gave). It doesn't make it right, it just makes it what happens.

Which is conveniently lifted when they are deemed to have committed a capital offense - which includes treason, not only murder - or on a mass basis in wartime.

And this again, is just what happens. The law doesn't have to say "death penalty for treason", it just does. I even argue against capitol punishment, saying that it makes us no better than them. However, there are other arguments FOR capitol punishment (such as the taxpayer burden for keeping some monsters alive in prison when we could just execute them and be done with it). So, again, it all boils down to what makes society seem to work better. But, again, that doesn't make it right.

Not exactly. As mentioned, society could also decide not to support reproduction that does not fit the privilige requirements. So if you have the child without sanction, you will not receive any benefits for it. You might in fact be penalised.

Or, if you want to take it further, the child will not be considered part of the society. Let it find its food in the wilderness.

Such a system might even seem fair. If population growth got out of control, the government could just say that "after your nth baby, all following children of yours get no social support". Whatever.

Interesting tidbit that. I had thought it reversible.

It's a common misconception. There have been attempts at making fully reversible systems using plugs, but they've either irritated the (very delicate) lining to the point of scarring and blockage, or been flushed out by the monthly menses.

People born with mental handicaps (or, if you want to extend it, genetic defects in general) should not be allowed to reproduce, because they will spread their inferior genes throughout the genepool, thus making the human race weaker overall. In "natural" circumstances, these people would not live long enough to reproduce and spread their inferior seed.

So I should never have been born?
Because depending on where you draw the line, my dad should have been steralized at birth. He has dyspraxia, which, since it's a learning difficulty which is heredetory, would count as a genetic defects. Never mind that he graduated from Cambrige, because in the wild he would have no doubt misjudged how close a bear was or stepped on a snake because of his poor coordination. After all that's what's important in modern socioty. And it is irrelevent that me and my brother (who both have it) are perfectly happy and set to become productive members of socioty. We are deffective. Socioty has failed by allowing us to be produced. I'm sorry if I'm a little biased on this one, but I don't really subscribe to that theory.

Pepole need to be educated, they need to be told if they have a different genetic make up, how likley it is for those differences to be passed on. And I'm not just being PC, I say differences, because alot of these problems including my own have another side to them which aren't well publicized. Then, they can decide whether to reproduce or not. Anyway, if you think socioty will stop once what you consider defects are gone, then you must be very naive, and before you know it we are making pepole beautiful, smart and athletic by sterelizing 95% of the population, and probably forgetting to factor in something more important.

a woman is currently giving birth to her 6th child she is mentally unstable and as we are speaking a child's protection agency agent is entering her hospital operation room in order to take the newborn child from her. what should we do? sterilize mentally dificient people so they cant reproduce? "steal" theyr babies they have worked so hard for(9 months of pregnancy + labor). or let them evolve and grow as social outcasts or what ever they turn out to be.

i will read proper etiquette tomorow and clean this up snoooooooze.

You'll need to define "mentally unstable" and "mentally deficient" as they apply to this case. A link to the case would be even better...

But does that make it right of China to have done it?
No more right or wrong than any other civil rights infringing regulatory law.


Well, we do it because it seems to make society work better.
So if you have no problem with this, then you should have no problem with reproduction restrictions - it can definitely make the society work smoother.

And this again, is just what happens. The law doesn't have to say "death penalty for treason", it just does. I even argue against capitol punishment, saying that it makes us no better than them. However, there are other arguments FOR capitol punishment (such as the taxpayer burden for keeping some monsters alive in prison when we could just execute them and be done with it). Actually, execution in US costs more than a life sentence.

But agreeing or not with capital punishment is not the point. Capital punishment violates just one right and just once - imprisonment violates all other rights, continuously, for many years. Death is in a sense natural, imprisonment is the most unnatural thing invented so far. Thus, one could argue that it's a much greater violation of human rights than capital punishment.

However, we do violate the right to freedom together with almost all other rights, for prolonged periods of time, on a regular basis, towards millions of people. And there doesn't seem to be any sizable movement against it. So, that means we agree that the society has the right to violate any person's rights, as long as the society works smoother that way.




steralized heredetory Cambrige socioty irrelevent
[...]
that me and my brother (who both have it) are perfectly happy and set to become productive members of socioty.
[...]
deffective Socioty Pepole likley socioty pepole
Well, no offense, but you don't seem to fit in all that perfectly, at least in the language department. That is not to say you shouldn't have been born or something, but if the genetic traits have anything to do with this issue, it's hard to argue there are no issues caused by the genetic code.

No more right or wrong than any other civil rights infringing regulatory law.

The specifics of whether this is actually a law, a policy, or make believe wouold help, nu?

So I should never have been born?
Because depending on where you draw the line, my dad should have been steralized at birth. He has dyspraxia, which, since it's a learning difficulty which is heredetory, would count as a genetic defects. Never mind that he graduated from Cambrige, because in the wild he would have no doubt misjudged how close a bear was or stepped on a snake because of his poor coordination. After all that's what's important in modern socioty. And it is irrelevent that me and my brother (who both have it) are perfectly happy and set to become productive members of socioty. We are deffective. Socioty has failed by allowing us to be produced. I'm sorry if I'm a little biased on this one, but I don't really subscribe to that theory.

Pepole need to be educated, they need to be told if they have a different genetic make up, how likley it is for those differences to be passed on. And I'm not just being PC, I say differences, because alot of these problems including my own have another side to them which aren't well publicized. Then, they can decide whether to reproduce or not. Anyway, if you think socioty will stop once what you consider defects are gone, then you must be very naive, and before you know it we are making pepole beautiful, smart and athletic by sterelizing 95% of the population, and probably forgetting to factor in something more important.

I never said that I personally thought you shouldn't have been born. I meerly put up two different philosophical views on the issue, both of which might seem valid in some way. I haven't stated where I morally stand on any of the issues posed in the thread.

No more right or wrong than any other civil rights infringing regulatory law.

Agreed.

So if you have no problem with this, then you should have no problem with reproduction restrictions - it can definitely make the society work smoother.

Who said I have no problem with this? I was justifying it in some way, but I could just as easily condem it in another way. I never said it was my belief, I was just saying that it is a belief, and stating how some people can arrive at this belief.

Actually, execution in US costs more than a life sentence.

Dandy.

But agreeing or not with capital punishment is not the point. Capital punishment violates just one right and just once - imprisonment violates all other rights, continuously, for many years. Death is in a sense natural, imprisonment is the most unnatural thing invented so far. Thus, one could argue that it's a much greater violation of human rights than capital punishment.

However, we do violate the right to freedom together with almost all other rights, for prolonged periods of time, on a regular basis, towards millions of people. And there doesn't seem to be any sizable movement against it. So, that means we agree that the society has the right to violate any person's rights, as long as the society works smoother that way.

I don't really disagree with anything said here, but I don't see how it's entirely relevant to what I said. I meerly said that the death penalty is there for whatever reasons it is there. I haven't explicitly stated I agree or disagree with it. I'm just glad I'm not in the lawmaking department for such things.

My issue is with the fact that child protection agencies seem to be hellbent on parental rights without any regard for the children. I taught so many kids whose parents were in and out of rehab, but the children never got taken away.

And when you're serving up tomato sauce on toast as a main meal to your children, so that you can afford your drugs, then yes, you are being neglectful. And no, you don't deserve your children.

Excellent question indeed.



Why is that a right instead of a privilege ?

Why would it be a privilege instead of a right?

Interesting tidbit that. I had thought it reversible.

I think it's the vasectomies that are reversible.