jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (54 posts)

Do you feel that sterilizing lower-income people and the disabled is appropriate

  1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
    Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months ago

    Do you feel that sterilizing lower-income people and the disabled is appropriate

    and constitutional? Or, might a push for sterilization be a political resurgence of Nazi and American eugenics of the early 20th century?

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13640967_f260.jpg

  2. lisavollrath profile image95
    lisavollrathposted 6 months ago

    I am horrified that anyone would think that a solution to poverty in this country is to prevent the poor from breeding. But I'm not surprised it's been suggested.

    More and more, American seems to be a country of those who have the wealth and advantages, and those who exist merely to serve them.

    Healthcare is only for the rich, and unless you can pay for it, it's fine to send you home to die.

    Education is only for the rich, or for those willing to commit themselves to a lifetime of debt to pay for it. Can't afford it? Serve the rich for the rest of your life, whether it's by paying for massive educational loans, or working in a low paying job that doesn't require it. Where are those jobs? Mostly, with huge corporations like fast food and retail giants.

    Housing in some places is now only for the rich. Want to live in California or New York City? You'll need a six-figure salary. If you don't have that, live somewhere else, because those places are only for rich people.

    And now, having children is only for the rich. If you don't have the money to raise a child, we'll sterilize you. We won't pay for your education, or your healthcare, but we'll take away your ability to have a family.

    What a great country this is...

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I too am horrified. In 1965, Ohio legislators proposed a sterilization mandate in reaction to LBJ's helping programs, but it failed. US seems a combo of "Harrison Bergeron" & "Brave New World" & worse.  A call to eliminate all diversity is ve

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      C'mon, I am not horrified at all.  I feel that if people are irresponsible to have children when they KNOW they can't afford it, there should be mandatory contraception, even sterilization for such people.  I think that it would be a GREAT idea!

    3. Aime F profile image83
      Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      And how would you enforce that? You think dragging people into a hospital and forcing them to have their bodies altered is a great idea?

    4. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      When people continue to be irresponsible, the only solution is FORCE.  Poor people aren't cognizant nor responsible re: birth control.  This is why they've THE MOST children which they can ill afford.  FORCED STERILIZATION is a reasonable solution!

    5. Aime F profile image83
      Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Forcing someone to go through unwanted medical procedures because of your own arbitrary parenting rules is about as far from reasonable as you can get.

    6. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      No it is HUMANE.  It is far better to force the poor to undergo sterilization than to have children who grow up in impoverished conditions.  That is the HEIGHT of being arbitrary.  You're stating that poverty is FINE for children. Well, IT ISN'T!

    7. lisavollrath profile image95
      lisavollrathposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      My parents didn't have two dimes to rub together when they had me. When they died, they were upper middle class. They left an estate worth well into seven figures. Using your logic, they wouldn't have had children until they were too old to have them

    8. shanmarie profile image79
      shanmarieposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Grace, what happens when all the poor are wiped it? Your middle class status would become the new poor. I already stated on your similar question that it is possible to rise above poverty. And can cite examples of people who did overcome.

    9. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Good God, no one should be poor.  People should be AT LEAST middle class socioeconomically.  Don't you realize that poverty is dehabilitating physically, emotionally,mentally, & psychologically.  PLEASE READ A BOOK ON THE EVILS OF POVERTY.....

    10. Aime F profile image83
      Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      And yet instead of helping those in poverty through social programs, you'd rather just sterilize them. You're right, that is super humane!

    11. wrenchBiscuit profile image84
      wrenchBiscuitposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Grace, you do not understand capitalism. Poverty not only increases the value of wealth, but wealth actually creates poverty. The way to end poverty is to destroy capitalism. No one wants to be poor. You seem to think poverty is a lifestyle choice!

  3. Aime F profile image83
    Aime Fposted 6 months ago

    It is beyond inappropriate. Eugenics is a slippery slope, once you arbitrarily decide that one trait or circumstance makes someone an unfit parent, where does it stop?

    I think the idea that poor or disabled people can't make good parents and raise successful children is pretty narrow-minded and comes from a place of privilege. My own mother and my husband both came from large families that were not well-off and they've both turned into wonderful, happy, prosperous adults who remember their childhoods pretty fondly for the most part.

    Not to mention the implication that it's okay to force medical procedures on people. Funny that the person who has commented saying it's a good idea is the same person who runs around complaining about government overreach on other topics.

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I agree. Most of my GED students were poor and some  disabled, but they were more able than most people think. They were good parents and most went on to college. Many became RNs, nurse practitioners. Engineering techs. The most disabled - IT tech.

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Children who are born poor OFTENTIMES end up POOR-I don't want this for children. Every child should have at least a middle class lifestyle w/myriad educational/cultural/intellectual/ socioeconomic opportunities. Poverty is HELL,no child ENDURE that!

    3. Aime F profile image83
      Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      And no human being should be made to endure sterilization against their will. When my mom was growing up they literally could not afford more than a loaf of bread to feed 7 children some weeks, yet she loves her family and is a very successful adult.

    4. Shyron E Shenko profile image80
      Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Aime, I raised 2 sons with very little money, both have become wonderful men...so I know what you are talking abut.

    5. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Shyron!

    6. wrenchBiscuit profile image84
      wrenchBiscuitposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I don't believe in eugenics because I would not be so special if everyone was as good looking, intelligent, and as thoughtful as I. I must admit that I am thankful for the time I have spent with a lesser breed of man. They make me shine so bright!

  4. kwade tweeling profile image90
    kwade tweelingposted 6 months ago

    HA! This is like the request for ways to kill a dog. It sounds so horrible on the surface but if you dig deeper, there are other questions at the root of the issue entirely. Oh, Eugenics, how I loath and love you.

    I think sterilizing anyone against their will is vile.

    First: offering sterilization, more people would accept it than most of us seem to realize. But birth control is a huge debate, and isn't offered because people don't want to pay for someone else's needs. So first we deny it, then we force it on people. WTF? How about we offer to pay for such operations before considering making them mandatory.

    Second: No. It is not constitutional to perform any kind of operation on another person without their consent.

    Third: Yes, it would be similar to the last times such a push was performed. Some people would be all for it, others would find it despicable.

    Furthermore, our society is in a strange pattern where we know we can do so much better than we are, but we're so focused on the pains and greed that effect us directly. When this happens, we can't see the solutions right in front of us. When we choose to look at things from a perspective of caring for each other, we'll find so many solutions that have been there for decades.

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I like your thoughtful comment. Good perspective.

    2. kwade tweeling profile image90
      kwade tweelingposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Patty.

  5. RJ Schwartz profile image94
    RJ Schwartzposted 6 months ago

    No, no, no, no - if we even start to think that way, America no longer exists.  As the father of a handicapped child, the thought of such a practice sickens me.

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Some people already think it, but I hope their suggestions stop. Bless you for your compassion.

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Where IS the logic?  Children should be brought up IN THE BEST ENVIRONMENT possible.  Parenting isn't about a person's so-called right to have children. THAT is a SELFISH thought.  Parenting is about WHAT IS BEST for....THE CHILD. REALLY NOW!

    3. lisavollrath profile image95
      lisavollrathposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Grace, if you think MONEY makes a good environment for children, you are sorely mistaken. It takes more than dollars to raise children right. Think of all the brilliant minds that came from a poor childhood!

    4. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Sadly, such brilliant children WON'T have their potential realized.  Poor children are THE LEAST educated because parents need them to supplement family income.  Also, there are NO FUNDS for further education. So it TAKES MONEY to raise children!

    5. lisavollrath profile image95
      lisavollrathposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Oprah Winfrey and Sam Walton were both born poor. You can Google "millionaires born poor" for endless lists of millionaires and billionaires who were born poor. Should these people not have been born?

    6. Shyron E Shenko profile image80
      Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Grace, being brought up with rich parents does not mean they are raised with morals handing kids what ever they want only tends to make them greedy and to look down on kids who have less materially..

  6. tsmog profile image83
    tsmogposted 6 months ago

    Part A of the first question is per the decision of Buck vs. Bell (1927) the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statue that other states relied on saying that Involuntary Sterilization is legal. But, it has been challenged ever since in the courts, although has not been overturned. That was a case regard mental disability. Feeble minded or imbecile were the terms tossed about.

    Involuntary sterilization does have a history with depth beginning around 1900 in the U.S. and is controversial today. Its history might be a surprise such as some Christian leaders supporting it. And, the Nazi’s supposedly were inspired by the U.S. usage of it. Too much to go into, but if interested begin with short article giving attention to its usage in Puerto Rico at the same time it was put into effect in 30 states.  http://stanford.edu/group/womenscourage … erto-rico/

    Today its regulation is state-by-state basis and not really practiced. There are federal guidelines too. It pretty much takes a court order authorizing it and usually occurs with mental disabilities and guardianship. It was also practiced with prisoners. For instance, California outlawed it in 1979 for prisoners, but reportedly there were 148 cases from 2006 – 2010 where women prisoners were sterilized illegally because of coercion.

    Basically its practice is considered to violate human rights today per the United Nations. Reading about it at the U.N. site is interesting and its usage is a global challenge. http://search.ohchr.org/results.aspx?k= … rilization

    Yes, if involuntary sterilization is the solution to poverty/low income, then it speaks of eugenics similar to those of the early twentieth century and also to Nazi ideals.

    BTW . . . I am not for it . . .

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I did not know about Puerto Rico. Thanks for all the info. I wish eugenics were illegal and that law enforced.

    2. ptosis profile image81
      ptosisposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Wow I vote you BEST ANSWER ever in the history of HP ! wow

    3. Shyron E Shenko profile image80
      Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Eugenics should be outlawed anywhere it is practiced, without debate, and anyone who is for it should be banned from any leadership role in our country and any other country....

    4. Besarien profile image87
      Besarienposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Well done Tim Mitchell! I was so upset by the first part I totally forgot that was part of the question.

  7. Cleo Burch profile image85
    Cleo Burchposted 6 months ago

    It's completely inhumane. It would most certainly be a resurgence of Nazi and American eugenics of the early 20th century.

    Further more, it is unconstitutional. It is your right to have children, and that's not something that should be taken away unless the parent deserves it.

    This isn't the first time I've seen someone ask this on Hubpages. I'm also not too caught up on current events. Are governments reconsidering making this legal?

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      A group of people in USA want our government to consider it. I  do not think it will happen.

  8. aguasilver profile image80
    aguasilverposted 6 months ago

    Eugenics is always an evil subject, I fully understand the concept, and indeed at one time in my life, when I was just as mindlessly evil as those who propose it are, the logic made perfect sense.

    But any person who realizes that every human being is precious, has been born with a purpose, and may achieve great or terrible things (and sometimes both) knows that once somebody is empowered to start deciding who lives and who dies or never exists, we risk killing our whole society.

    It's the randomness of birth that causes variety, a mixed bunch of souls seeking whatever they are minded to seek, some doing good, some doing evil, most of them unaware that as they live their life, they are shaping destiny, theirs and ours.

    Most never even understanding life, even as they die.

    People who believe they are special refuse to understand this, but Beethoven's mother was recommended to abort him, as was mine (and no I cannot play a note) and he rose to greatness, from poverty.

    It's often poverty that produces our game changers in life, yes it's terrible for all the kids who have deadbeat parent/s, who never have a chance, but Ben Carson was not born rich, he succeeded.

    So obliteration of those who society looks upon as unworthy, would inevitably stop some game changers being born, and in any case, whatever your lottery of birth threw you, your task is to live with as best you can, because your every word, deed, action and thought, shapes your eternity and existence.

    Sad that those with the power, who normally come from stable established families, lose that cutting edge sense of humanity as they ascend the ladder of life generation by generation getting more power and less understanding, excepting where $$$ signs appear and their own selfish personal benefits are paramount.

    Yes something must be done, we must identify those who show an awakened instinct, from any social group and encourage, mentor and support them to find their greatness, rather than leave them frustrated so they turn to illegality, in an attempt to try and achieve the same worthless dream that their idols, the rich and famous, cling onto.

    As Bill Hicks said, "Life is just a ride....".

  9. elayne001 profile image69
    elayne001posted 6 months ago

    Your question is very insensitive and inappropriate for a number of reasons. There are so many reasons people are in a lower income, most of which are beyond their control. Also, I have a granddaughter who has Spina Bifida and is in a wheelchair. Her mind works very well and she is very talented - perfect pitch voice, smart and sassy. I think she has as much right as anyone else to have the opportunity to have a child. Why did you ask such a question is what I would like to know.

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Because a group of people want to sterilize the poor and disabled in America and I feel others not only need to know this, but also need to prevent it from happening. I feel as you do and am an advocate of people with such conditions as your daughter

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      YES, I read the proposal & wholeheartedly agree.  I have expressed such sentiments almost three decades ago.  No, not the disabled because they are responsible & contributing people.  The poor AREN'T- they don't HAVE THE RESOURCES to raise ki

  10. William F. Torpey profile image76
    William F. Torpeyposted 6 months ago

    Sterilizing low income people and/or the disabled is a very sick thing to do. If anyone has to be sterilized it should be the filthy rich.

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I agree that the sterilization of the poor and disabled is unacceptable and a mentally twisted concept. It is exactly the old eugenics, plus a sort of  genocide to eliminate certain groups of people.

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      No the disabled SHOULDN'T be sterilized.  Disabled people are valuable & beautiful human beings.  However, the POOR are an ENTIRELY different matter.  Most of the poor are IRRESPONSIBLE.  They have children willy nilly- they should be STERILIZED!

    3. lisavollrath profile image95
      lisavollrathposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      "Most of the poor are irresponsible" is probably the most hateful generality I've seen posted on HubPages.

      No, they're not. Maybe you should meet a few poor heads of households before you spew that bull.

    4. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I knew some poor kids.  Their parents were beyond irresponsible.  They believed that the world OWED them.  My mother who had patients on welfare who threw away clothes because they KNEW that they would get new clothes from the government!

    5. wrenchBiscuit profile image84
      wrenchBiscuitposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Grace, You would have been welcome in Nazi Germany. If we were to adopt your inhumane way of solving problems, then it follows that by sterilizing white people we could end racism, and also get rid of the ugly graffiti carved into Mt. Rushmore.

  11. Ken Burgess profile image89
    Ken Burgessposted 6 months ago

    Sadly, this is out of our control and being done without your knowledge, and has been going on, for a long time now.

    "Last year, we had mergers in the agribusiness’ GMO-corporations worldwide. This has created an alarming concentration of corporate power in the hands of basically three corporate groups.
    The first one is Bayer AG of Germany, which made a friendly takeover of Monsanto. The reason for this was that Monsanto became identified in the public mind as pure evil and everything bad about GMO’s, which was accurate. This became a burden on the whole GMO project. So, Bayer stepped in, which has a friendly image of an aspirin, harmless, nice company, but in fact is the company that invented heroin in the 1880’s and made gas for the ovens of Auschwitz during WWII. It's one of the dirtiest agribusiness companies in the world with a series of homicides and pesticides that killed off bee colonies and many other things that are essential to life and to nature.
    ChemChina - China - for some reason took over Swiss Syngenta, which makes weed-killers.
    Then, Dow Chemicals and DuPont merged their GMO businesses together.
    So, we have three gigantic corporate groups worldwide controlling the genetically-modified part of the human food chain. "
    http://katehon.com/article/genetics-are … population
    An article anyone who is concerned about cancers, autism, or eugenics should read.
    "The ocean is basically a toilet bowl for all of our chemical pollutants and waste in general," says Chelsea Rochman, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California. "Eventually, we start to see those contaminants high up in the food chain, in seafood and wildlife."
    That's why the biggest, fattiest fish, like tuna and swordfish, tend to have the highest levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other dioxins. (And that's concerning, given that canned tuna was the second most popular fish consumed in the U.S. in 2012, according to the National Fisheries Institute.)"
    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/201 … ur-seafood
    Another great article (though dated) that explains why most seafood is just as likely to be carrying toxic levels of harmful substances.
    This is going on, with full knowledge of those in the FDA, and international organizations that are supposed to be protecting the people from it.  If anything, the government protects these practices.

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image93
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Ken - There are killer corporation everywhere, it seems, making profits on torture and death. I wonder that some profiteers don't explode into flames as they go about their business.

  12. platinumOwl4 profile image75
    platinumOwl4posted 6 months ago

    Suppose that was appropriate during the time a family member of yours was about to give birth and because someone in authority made the decision to sterilize a genius was murdered. Man does not have the right or authority to make that type of decision. How many people native to this geographical area were slaughter under a variety of guises.

  13. Ryan Cornelius profile image69
    Ryan Corneliusposted 6 months ago

    NO!No!No!. That never been a thought and never will. Can't believe that is even a consideration.

  14. Besarien profile image87
    Besarienposted 6 months ago

    It isn't a crime to be poor or disabled. You simply can't believe in America without believing that people have the ability to rise above their current circumstances. It is the duty of those of us who are currently advantaged to help people with less reach their potential. Most people only need the right opportunity and someone who believes in them to shine.

    Michael Faraday had poor parents who couldn't afford to educate him beyond the utter basics. He taught himself. What would the world be without Faraday, or Oprah, born poor in rural Mississippi? JK Rowling was a waitress on welfare before the first Harry Potter novel.

    Disabled people might have to work harder and smarter but they have unlimited potential for greatness, just like poor people and the rest of us. Stephen Hawking? FDR? Stevie Wonder? What would the world be without the contributions of the disabled?

    For anyone even thinking about saying yes to this question, consider that you may be one market crash, layoff, or lawsuit away from becoming destitute, one accident, illness, or tour of duty away from a disability. Everyone is likely to be either poor or disabled in life at some point if they live long enough. It shouldn't take something that drastic before a person develops some empathy for others.

  15. yogaburnclub profile image86
    yogaburnclubposted 6 months ago

    Never this is very in-human.Everyone has a right and should be given equal opportunities.I think what the poor and person with disabilities need is empowerment.There is great evidence that once they are empowered many of them have changed their living status to far much better.Once economically empowered they can contribute to nation-building.

    Furthermore, the situation is not permanent and it can occur to anyone.You can leave your home in good condition on your way you get an accident that makes you disabled.Does it mean that the government should abandon you.No that's very unfair.

    For the homeless catastrophic disasters can make one homeless and the government has the right to ensure that this family lives well after the disasters.

    All human being have a right to reproductive health and sterilisation of any human being is against any human dignity

  16. tamarawilhite profile image92
    tamarawilhiteposted 5 months ago

    I disagree with sterilization, because it is permanent.
    If you're on between 15 and 45 while on welfare, require a Norplant or IUD, a type of long term contraception that is foolproof. If a teenaged girl is in the household, she, too, should receive long term contraception.
    Now no one whether on WIC or SSDI accidentally or intentionally has another child she cannot support that everyone else ends up supporting.
    If the woman gets back on her feet or married to someone who can support her, the birth control can come out or she can keep it in for free. 
    This model eliminates around 90% of teenaged pregnancies, most illegitimate births, and does so without requiring forced abortions. No one is sterilized, no one is forced to work or retrain, no one is monitored to make sure they take their birth control pills, and you can get your fertility back when you and/or your partner can support it.

 
working