Post: #1

What is y'all take on this story?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ctomy.html

Quote:A High Court judge is being asked to make legal history and sanction the first sterilisation of a man in this country because it is 'in his best interests'.

Post: #2

Speaking of Nazis...

America did medical experiments where black people were deliberately with syphilis up until the early seventies. In many cases - the syphillis was left untreated resulting in death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_sy...experiment

I was discussing this with a friend. And he wasn't aware of this - so thought it might be new to some of you as well.

Post: #3

Ha, they mean in the state's best interest.

Love how they deflect, saying it won't be used as precendent to sterilize more men with learning disabilities.

Of course it will, that is why you are talking about it.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if privileged women weren't wasting their 20's not having kids, leaving child-rearing to the poor, unfortunate and mentally infirm.

This is why feminism always fails - not because the wrong people are having kids, precisely because the right people are not having kids.

Post: #4

Quote:Propaganda for Nazi Germany's T-4 Euthanasia Program: "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too." from the Office of Racial Policy's Neues Volk.

Post: #5

Eugenics and all of this human population control is the ultimate slippery slope. The same is true of welfarism, which occupies the opposite end of the spectrum, where not only do you have to subsidize these guys on welfare (by which I mean single mothers), you have to subsidize their children and their grandchildren for their entire lives in a multi-generational parasitical lineage.

I think the old valuation of ethics is undergoing a process of change now that sterilization is reversible, for both men and women. They go on welfare, they get the female birth control or the RISUG (the new birth control pill for men being developed in India), they can't have kids and start a multi-generational welfare lineage that burdens the nation over a span of decades. Any child benefits from the state is for people who already had children, and they have no perverse incentive to have more kids in abusing the system.

Now they can't stay on welfare, and when they go back onto work, they undergo the reversal. Temporary, reversible, it protects the productive members of society, while avoiding invasiveness of a person's body with surgical procedures.

They just swallow a birth control pill one before they start collecting checks, and swallow another when they stop. Done.

Post: #6

Nazi's learnt Eugenics from the Americans.

Post: #7

True dat.

Quote:Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

Post: #8

This has nothing to do with nazi eugenics, as far as I can tell.

The man asked for a vasectomy, but because it's a nationalized system in Britain the case went to court since the man is not considered mentally healthy.

Thus the judge must decide if this man can get a vasectomy or not.

A better question: Why should the state be allowed to determine, in the first place, if this guy gets a vasectomy? Who cares if he's mentally ill - if he wants one, why not let him get one?

Post: #9

(08-02-2013 04:01 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if privileged women weren't wasting their 20's not having kids, leaving child-rearing to the poor, unfortunate and mentally infirm.

This is why feminism always fails - not because the wrong people are having kids, precisely because the right people are not having kids.

I'm not seeing the connection between feminism and the fact that they're considering whether to sterilize our mentally disabled friend.

How would feminism's existence (or hypothetical lack of it) change the discussion about whether to sterilize this dude?

Post: #10

And had to laugh at the use of the term 'learning disabilities'.

From the gist of it, this guy has a little more than dyslexia...

Post: #11

Here is my take on it: I think forced sterilization is unethical, but I am in favor of:
- Free sterilization and contraceptives for all
- Sterilization as a condition to receive any significant government assistance. For example, keep count of total benefits received by the household and stop them at $10K until all adults in that household are sterilized.

Post: #12

I'd also include low IQ repeat violent criminal offenders on that list.

Post: #13

(08-02-2013 06:21 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  Here is my take on it: I think forced sterilization is unethical, but I am in favor of:
- Free sterilization and contraceptives for all
- Sterilization as a condition to receive any significant government assistance. For example, keep count of total benefits received by the household and stop them at $10K until all adults in that household are sterilized.

Go see a doctor, dude.

Post: #14

eugenics is old news. In the 2000's it's all about dygenics.

Post: #15

Samseau: He didn't specifically ask for a vasectomy as far as I can tell; he said he didn't want to have more children. That changes things slightly.

Post: #16

Anarcho capitalism makes sense. Stop subsidizing the parasites and they'll dwindle in numbers naturally. You feed invasive species it multiplies and you need more food.

Post: #17

Eugenics around the world is still very real. Over 90% of children discovered to have Down Syndrome in the womb are aborted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

In China and India, girls are aborted at an astonishing rate because families wish to have boys to financially support them.

This is eugenics in the modern sense. You just take care of the issue before the individual is born.

Post: #18

I am all for the euthanizing of retards. Let me suggest we begin with the following 535 test cases...

Post: #19

(08-05-2013 02:40 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Eugenics around the world is still very real. Over 90% of children discovered to have Down Syndrome in the womb are aborted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

In China and India, girls are aborted at an astonishing rate because families wish to have boys to financially support them.

This is eugenics in the modern sense. You just take care of the issue before the individual is born.

If I was having a baby, and we found out early on in the pregnancy that it was going to have downs, I would want to do the abortion as well. That is a hard life to give a kid.

Post: #20

(08-05-2013 09:15 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  If I was having a baby, and we found out early on in the pregnancy that it was going to have downs, I would want to do the abortion as well. That is a hard life to give a kid.

When my wife was pregnant with our little girl we had this very discussion, and we both agreed in the affirmative. Life is hard enough.

Post: #21

(08-05-2013 09:24 PM)Mack Four Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 09:15 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  If I was having a baby, and we found out early on in the pregnancy that it was going to have downs, I would want to do the abortion as well. That is a hard life to give a kid.

When my wife was pregnant with our little girl we had this very discussion, and we both agreed in the affirmative. Life is hard enough.

I've seen hundreds of people with major disabilities and have nothing but sympathy and pity for the parents, have to agree here.

Post: #22

Lets not invoke Godwin's law here; just because the nazi's practiced eugenics, it doesn't mean that eugenics proponents = "natzees". I'm so sick of people invoking the nazis ad nauseuem, "they're bad", ok I get it. As for eugenics, I actually approve of it, as long as there are reasonable limitations. I personally believe that rapists, murderers, and other recidivists should be sterilized. It's only fair. As for mentally disabled people, I think they should possibly give depo-provera to women that are at risk for getting pregnant. In many cases, the children of these pairings suffer the most.

Post: #23

(08-05-2013 11:43 PM)numanist Wrote:  Lets not invoke Godwin's law here; just because the nazi's practiced eugenics, it doesn't mean that eugenics proponents = "natzees". I'm so sick of people invoking the nazis ad nauseuem, "they're bad", ok I get it. As for eugenics, I actually approve of it, as long as there are reasonable limitations. I personally believe that rapists, murderers, and other recidivists should be sterilized. It's only fair. As for mentally disabled people, I think they should possibly give depo-provera to women that are at risk for getting pregnant. In many cases, the children of these pairings suffer the most.

That's a really good point. Nazi's ate food. Does that mean we shouldn't eat food? Nazi's practiced eugenics. Does that mean we shouldn't practice eugenics?

Post: #24

Theoretically, welfare is eugenics. It supports those contributing little to nothing to our society in bringing up their offspring and keeping them in a harmless state of mind.
Its a tradeoff between social stability and selection pressure. When everyone gets pampered no major ®evolutions will take place.
In the past those people might have starved or been killed in wars.

The US basically has a higher selection pressure than other western countries, because if you are a down the social ladder, a lot of men join the army for good money and potentially get killed in duty. Lineage closed, if the soldier has no children.

Post: #25

(08-05-2013 11:43 PM)numanist Wrote:  Lets not invoke Godwin's law here; just because the nazi's practiced eugenics, it doesn't mean that eugenics proponents = "natzees". I'm so sick of people invoking the nazis ad nauseuem, "they're bad", ok I get it. As for eugenics, I actually approve of it, as long as there are reasonable limitations. I personally believe that rapists, murderers, and other recidivists should be sterilized. It's only fair. As for mentally disabled people, I think they should possibly give depo-provera to women that are at risk for getting pregnant. In many cases, the children of these pairings suffer the most.

Most parents if they are smart already due this. Most women whom are mentally challenged will be given a depo-shot as parents don't want to deal with the monthly dealings of her period. Some do go to the extreme and get their kids tubes tied but that is more rare.