jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (81 posts)

Should America institute a Mandatory Sterilization program?

  1. cooldad profile image61
    cooldadposted 6 years ago

    I ask this with total sincerety.  I firmly believe that certain people in our society should not be allowed to breed. 

    When a man molests a child or rapes someone, they should be castrated.  When a mother abuses or kills her child, she should have her tubes tied. 

    I think the biggest problem would be figuring out who would be appointed to make those decisions.  Our politicians and governement officials aren't qualified to make such decisions and neither are most of the people in our country. 

    Maybe when I'm president one day, I will create a special panel to address this need.

    What are your thoughts?

    1. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who decides who gets fixed or not?

      Who decides who does the deed?

      Should they be sedated or put to speak during the performance of this process or made to suffer like their victims suffered?

      Should this be done immediately upon conviction, or what about the appeal process?

      How much should we as good citizens have to pay for this to be done not to mention the hospitalization of each candidate?

      Why should I as a law abiding citizen have to pay through my hard earned taxes for something like this?

      As a need to know society, should this all be released to the public through the media?

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There are so many difficult questions regarding the implementation of this process.  I'm not sure of the answers yet.  It would be terrible to wrongly castrate someone.

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image81
        EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You've had Death Row, now bring on... ::drums please:: Castration Row lol

        OK, so it's not really funny but I have a very warped sense of humour.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I thought from the title this was a serious proposal how to deal with the Tea Party.

          My bad.

        2. cooldad profile image61
          cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          HA, that was funny, both comments:)

        3. kirstenblog profile image75
          kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I found that hysterical! Literally burst with laughter, then again I too have a warped sense of humor big_smile

          My first thought to 'Should America institute a mandatory sterilization program?' was, only if its run by republicans! lol

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image81
            EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ooooh no, I hope it didn't make too much mess lol lol

            1. kirstenblog profile image75
              kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'll send you the dry cleaning bill! lol tongue

    2. Moms-Secret profile image76
      Moms-Secretposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I actually talked about this with my husband not too long ago.  In our discussions we found that it was actually cheaper to prevent births than to provide services for the neglected children.  Our idea was not quite so extreme, but it involved making it mandatory for drug addicted women and mothers currently charged with neglect or worse to were an IUD.  This is not a permanent change for them and they would be able to earn the right to bear children if they met certain requirements. 

      I would not go any farther than that.  while I agree that some men and women do not deserve the right to make and hurt children, I would not trust the power to make this permanent decision to any agency.

    3. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It has already been tried in the U.S.  Check out Americans Eugenics Movement now known as planned parenthood.

      Our program motivated Adolf Hitler and inspired him to use our gas chamber designs as well as the gas to commit the atrocities.

      Each individual is Sovereign and no other human being has the right to do anything to another human being without their consent.


      Mighty fascist ideas you hold!

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's quite the stretch.  I'm talking about common sense here, not killing millions of Jewish people.  Good try though.  So, you really think that there are people in this country who should be allowed to breed after killing or abusing their children?

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I do not think that YOU or any other human being has the authority to make that decision.

          I find your idea repulsive and would fight to the death to stop it as would others. 

          So while you are sterilizing we will be dealing with the tyrants!

          JUGGALO JUSTICE!

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Eugenics and Planned Parenthood have nothing to do with each other.

        Eugenics was about forcing certain so-called undesirable people to undergo sterilization.

        Planned Parenthood is about helping people to control their own reproduction: to not get pregnant when they don't want kids yet, and to have kids when they're ready to have them.

        "Each individual is Sovereign and no other human being has the right to do anything to another human being without their consent."

        Yes. And Planned Parenthood doesn't do stuff like sterilize people without their consent. Shame on you for slanderously claiming that they do.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The American Eugenics Movement transformed in to Planned Parenthood.  Same organization, different name.

          I did not say PP harmed anyone.  They stick to only harming the unborn.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            no...they stick to ensuring the health of women.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image91
              Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Although opposed to abortion my desire for the sovereignty of the individual would never allow me to support any ban on the act.

              Planned Parenthood does help women. 


              In context of my statement, The American Eugenics Movement changed in to Planned Parenthood when Eugenics laws was justly eliminated.

              So now the only harm done by PP is to matter that is not yet allowed to form and be born.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                PP offers women the choice they have by law... Ultimately, it is the woman's choice to accept their advice or not.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                  Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  They get consent before any treatment is done.  I accept that.

                  Not so much, the American Eugenics Movement.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "The American Eugenics Movement transformed in to Planned Parenthood."

            Proof?

            1. Reality Bytes profile image91
              Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I do not know what you would accept as proof.


              http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHK … parenthood


              Just a basic Google search, you make up your own mind.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "I do not know what you would accept as proof."
                Documented fact would work.

                "Just a basic Google search, you make up your own mind."
                Okay, done.

                You're (partly) right. The American Birth Control League (which was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger) was a lobbying organization, dedicated to making birth control available in poor neighborhoods.

                In the late 30s, it merged with another Sanger-founded group, the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, to form the Birth Control Federation of America. In the early 40s this organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

                This part is true, and I hadn't known that before, so, thanks!

                But what's not true is 1) that "the Eugenics Movement" became Planned Parenthood (there were other eugenics organizations and other eugenicists than Sanger) and 2) that Planned Parenthood is a eugenics organization. That's false. Planned Parenthood forces nothing on anyone, and contrary to propaganda, isn't anti-procreation. Heck, there's even a page on their website about infertility and where to get treatment for it.

                So, yes, Planned Parenthood came from the Birth Control Federation of America. But the name change wasn't about covering up some sinister eugenic plot to secretly sterilize people. It reflects a decision to change the goals of the organization. Planned Parenthood is about empowering people to control for themselves whether they have children or not. That's not eugenics, not by a long shot.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                  Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I was not trying to imply that PP was a eugenics org.  It was to the OP"s statement.

                  I was merely pointing out that the U.S. already had a Eugenics program.  The history of which has been buried in education for the most part.

                  PP does nothing to anyone without their consent.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "I was not trying to imply that PP was a eugenics org."

                    Oh. I must've misread your intent when I saw "Check out Americans Eugenics Movement now known as planned parenthood." and "The American Eugenics Movement transformed in to Planned Parenthood.  Same organization, different name."

      3. cheaptrick profile image75
        cheaptrickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thank you so much for this comment.I was just about to say how it sickens me to see so many agree with this premise.You folks ...or anyone for that matter,do not have the right to legislate birth right.Look at how many people have been released from death row because of wrongful conviction.Some innocent people have been executed.To those of you who agree I say Hiel Hitler and may someone in your family qualify for these programs you favor.

    4. Valerie Howard profile image72
      Valerie Howardposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Honestly, why don't we take this argument further.  Let's castrate the parents of the crooks that rip off ordinary people everyday with their predatory practices...They are more of a burden on society than the handful of idiots who can't keep their thing in their pants, or their hands to themselves...

      But in all fairness, why don't we castrate rapist and molesters? Because men don't condone, but they understand.  And the truth is, 90% of mothers for the most part do not hurt their children, so for the few nuts out there, lock them up like the rest of the crooks.

      But no one has the right to impose any medical procedure on any human being without their consent and that's the law, unless it is a case of life or death or a medical emergency. So this would be a waste of taxpayers time.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "But in all fairness, why don't we castrate rapist and molesters? Because men don't condone, but they understand."

        Uh, no, that's not why. Here's why:
        "Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

        Mutilation would count as cruel and unusual, I would say. We don't chop the hands off of thieves, either.

    5. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Usually...doesn't the rapist and murderer go to prison where they have no chance to procreate further anyway?   And I would think conjugal visits are off-limits to them also.

      I saw a tv show once where a convicted molester voluntarily took some kind of drug that, in effect, castrated him of his desire.  He felt he couldn't stop his temptation, so he volunteered for help.

      That kind of thing might work, a temporary fix.   But I wouldn't trust any panel of judges to oversee the kind of law that you're proposing.   You're getting responses already from people who are in relationships that are diametrically opposed to procreation anyway,  so if that's any kind of cross-section of what authority would consist of, then your idea is simply a slippery slope to tyranny.


      That being said,  I'd like to propose a feasible scenario of what to do with people who habitually spout lies, curses and carp and porn and blasphemy-----stitch their mouths shut. lol  roll But that's a whole 'nother subject.

      By the way, are you a Democrat or a Republican or what?
      ...'Cause if you're a Democrat and become President, your goal will already be half done, 'cause your fellow legislators and followers' agenda will already have aborted or otherwise denied the possibility of life to most of the future population anyway.

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm making up my own party called the "Realist" Party.  My main goal is to operate totally on common sense.

    6. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Once you bring in a law like that, where would you draw the line? Next would it be drug abusers, then those who are poor? Enforced sterilization is wrong on so many levels.

      There was a time the mentally retarded were sterilized.

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know there are many obstacles, but I don't think it's wrong.  I think it could be applied accurately to some of the "worst of the worst" people.  You can't tell me when you see a mother who murders her children or a man who brutally rapes a woman, that they should be allowed to breed????

        1. CMHypno profile image89
          CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If they are not allowed out of prison they wouldn't be able to breed - if someone commits a crime of that magnitude, like murder or rape they should be in prison for a very long time.

          Sterilisation by the state is so wrong on so many levels, and as UW mentioned where do you draw the line? It opens the floodgates and starts pushing back the parameters of what is acceptable.

          There needs to be much better rehabilitation programmes running in prisons, along with counselling and psychiatric care, along with an acceptance that it will never be safe to let a small percentage of offenders out

    7. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Let me know when you run for election. You got my vote! big_smile

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Will do, you can be my press secretary.

    8. Paraglider profile image88
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nazi Germany has already been mentioned. Modern day Saudi Arabia and Iran regularly carry out 'fitting revenge' punishments.
      Is this the sort of company you want America to join?

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not exactly, but it would be nice to actually punish people who deserve to be punished.  Actually punish them to where they won't rape again, won't destroy a child's life because of molestation.  Because, our current system does not work at all.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So, should we cut off the hands of thieves, too?

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How would CEOs endorse the golden parachute checks they get for resigning when they get caught?

          2. cooldad profile image61
            cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Jeff- maybe, I really don't know, it depends how barbaric we would like to become.  I don't think that would work though, because all of our politicians would have no hands and how would they be able to sign anything?

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LOL, that got a chuckle!

    9. Danny R Hand profile image60
      Danny R Handposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's all good until 'those appointed to make that decision ' chose YOU!

      1. cooldad profile image61
        cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True, but I'm not planning on brutalizing anyone anytime soon.  I've never been keen on raping.

        1. Danny R Hand profile image60
          Danny R Handposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The point is, it always starts out with what seems to be a valid position. But somewhere along the way it ALWAYS gets misguided. I'm all for castorating rapists and child molesters. But when will those in power expand the policy to include spousal abusers, those who spank a child, muslims, tea partiers,.......
            You see my point. And it ALWAYS HAPPENS!!!

    10. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have heard the most horrific stories from a friend who is in the foster care system; Mothers who give birth to drunk babies, or jacked up on hardcore drugs, the kid ends up being crippled for life. Take the kids away, tie her tubes, and take a baseball bat to her freaking face.
      Cut off the child molesters pecker and shoot him in the back of the head. (Closed casket funeral). Maybe then they won't say "uh oh", the next time Chris Hansen catches them trying to hook up with minors.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Chris Hansen is an opportunistic sicko, unfortunately from my home town. His program is created by sickos, about sickos and watched by sickos. Are you a fan, Onus?

    11. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's the dumbest idea I've heard recently.

  2. calpol25 profile image73
    calpol25posted 6 years ago

    There are those of us here on the other side of the Atlantic that would seriously agree with you on that one, as we have the same thoughts for our country. :-)

    1. cooldad profile image61
      cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.

      1. calpol25 profile image73
        calpol25posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Trust me you are not alone :-)

  3. ALUR profile image65
    ALURposted 6 years ago

    Okay so if we agree some people should not breed or better yet some deserve extinction(mind you pedophiles is what i had in mind), what's the test to qualify who isn't deemed worthy of breeding? LOL

    1. cooldad profile image61
      cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's the difficult part.  I guess maybe we would need to set up some special "Breeding Commission" to figure that out.  I would love to be part of that.  It's just a pipe dream though.  We rarely hold people accountable for such minor things like stealing, how could we ever hold someone accountable for breeding?

      1. Valerie Howard profile image72
        Valerie Howardposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        May I ask you, which group of people will you start with first, and what would be your criteria?  I am sure you would include fat, white, bald men?

        Guess you never heard of the Holocaust, or The Tuskegee Experiment.  Two very bad ideas, that cost the lives of many people, just because someone else tried to implement their own idea of a BREEDING COMMISSION...

        1. cooldad profile image61
          cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, that was classy.  I would include fat, white, bald men if they were brutally raping women or molesting children. 

          If you were brutally raped by someone, would you really mind if he was castrated because of his crime?

  4. chanroth profile image61
    chanrothposted 6 years ago

    I had always think about this whenever there news such as raping and killing their own child. It get me really angry and I wish someone could do something about it. I would have to agree with you as I believe the same as what you are believing. I remember what my dad say, he say if he was the president, who ever caught steeling have to amputate their fingers, who ever murder someone should be murder the exact same...who ever rape someone should be castrated and who ever kill a child or whatever should not be allowed to have children PERIOD! I believe my dad is right, but I'm not sure about he others as people believe differently. Some may say it is cruelty but my question is, isn't it any different? They were cruel enough to their victim to take their life...why not do the same as a punishment?...I guess these are reason why there is so many criminal and violence in America because the law is to leany on the criminal.

  5. Monisajda profile image81
    Monisajdaposted 6 years ago

    Even if such laws were passed they would be abused and many innocent would be inadvertently deprived of right to breed. Poor people would fall into such category while rich would always find a way to bend the law.

    Tooth for tooth, arm for arm was a law in ancient Babylonian Hammurabi's code.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If government attempts to harm the people, they may find themselves in harms way from the same people!

  6. EmpressFelicity profile image81
    EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago

    I've made a similar point on this forum before, when someone proposed a population cull.

    My point was that anyone proposing stuff of this kind should be prepared to step up and offer themselves as the first candidate.

    'Nuff said.

  7. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    Hitler The Third Reich And Eugenics

    The entire world felt that Adolph Hitler was insane, the truth is that the idea of a Caucasian Race with blond hair and blue eyed Superior Master Race was not thought of by Hitler. This thought pattern was formed in the United States for over twenty years before Hitler rose to power.

    When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1924 he used numerous quotes from prominent American Eugenicists and held a comprehensive knowledge of the subject.

    Hitler stated "“There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable."

    It was not the German Republic of which he spoke it was the United States. Hitler spoke often to his fellow Nazi's how he diligently followed the Eugenic Legislation of the United States.

    Hitler also stated: “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.

    While the Third Reich was rising in power, American Eugenicists was very open to the idea that Hitler was ready and able to implement their research on a mass scale. Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital made a statement ten years after Virginia passed its sterilization act in 1924. “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

    From My Hub On Eugenics!

  8. Patty Inglish, MS profile image89
    Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 years ago

    The Ohio legislature introduced a bill for sterilization for welfare-recipient females under the Johnson Administration. It did not pass. 

    Our state did not sterilize MR/DD and let Downs Syndrome males and females live on the same ward at the state hospital, thinking that Downs persons are sterile already. Many babies. Finally used separate wards by gender. Finally, two wards were used to separate the genders.

  9. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago

    Dude, seriously?

    While I understand your passion to protect the innocent, your idea would result in abuse of civil rights disproportionately applied to the those who don't have the money or ability to defend themselves.

    Just like the death penalty.

    1. cooldad profile image61
      cooldadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am serious.  I posed a serious question.  If you or a love one was brutally raped by a man, would you really have a problem with that man being castrated?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Emotionally? Absolutely not, and I'd love to do it myself. With a hammer. Or perhaps an eggbeater. Or a low-temperature blowtorch. Or some fire ants.

        Rationally? Absolutely. See, the thing is, justice and revenge are two different things. Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. The Constitution is kind of important.

        Plus, even when the crime is about the same, poor and minority defendants still get disproportionally harsh sentences when convicted.

        Finally, when you imprison an innocent man, you can let him out again when he's exonerated. If you castrate an innocent man or give a hysterectomy to an innocent woman, and you can't give them their bits back.

        I get why the idea sounds good to you. It's appalling what some people will do to others. But in a civil society, we really need to be reasonable rather than emotional.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm glad I read through the thread before replying, because this is exactly what I would have said, although probably not as well as you did.

  10. Peter Owen profile image61
    Peter Owenposted 6 years ago

    This concept might be very useful in correcting our government. Implement the law for the president and congress stating if they can't pass a balanced budget and reduce spending, they shall be put under the knife.

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I think that anyone who has two green eyes and looks at the fairness of a child's skin should be forced to have one eye gouged out and one ear burnt shut.

    Clearly! This is the will of logic!

    For, those with green eyes can see only the money that the child's fair skin will create in the brothels; and only by having both ears can the green-eyed witch hear the appropriate bids by the sadistic heathens at the auction for the youth.

    (Yes, I'm making fun of the OP).

  12. DannyMaio profile image57
    DannyMaioposted 6 years ago

    I think If someone on welfare kept having kids to get more money, they should have their tubes tied, so they can't reproduce anymore. They are not taking care of their kids and the tax payers are paying for them. I do believe in sterilizing any sex offender, actually hacking it off! If this happened to anyone's children you are lying if you say you wouldn't want this!

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "I do believe in sterilizing any sex offender, actually hacking it off!"

      Huh, who'd have thought you'd support sharia law?

      1. DannyMaio profile image57
        DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If that is sharia law then they have a good law in that one.

        If your child was sexually brutalized but one of those creeps you would want the same. if you say no, then your lying to yourself!

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Of course I'd want it for the perpetrator if my kids was a victim. But for reasons mentioned above, I know that it would be terrible public policy as well as unconstitutional (y'know, that bit about cruel and unusual punishment?).

  13. Aficionada profile image91
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    The whole premise of the OP stems from frustration with our justice system, doesn't it?  But there are so many flaws in the proposed solution that it's hard to know where to begin to address them - except that some others here have already done so.

    One problem that I haven't seen addressed yet is the underlying assumption that the offspring of rapists and molesters will automatically have the same traits as the molester, or that they themselves (the offspring) have no right to life.  That's just not true.  I know personally more than one child of a molester, and they are some of the most wonderful human beings I know.

    I don't see the "breeding" itself as the problem, but rather all the other acts possibly surrounding the rape or molestation: the violence, drug use, dehumanizing of individuals, and neglect of the child produced.

    Another problem that has been addressed somewhat is that the criminal tendencies are not necessarily known in advance; once they become known, the offender is likely removed from the gene pool by imprisonment or institutionalization.  I know personally the family of a woman who killed her own children.  There was no way whatsoever to predict that she would do such a thing.  She had previously been a loving parent, but mental illness evolved into disastrously flawed thinking.  She is currently locked up.

    1. stclairjack profile image81
      stclairjackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      thank you for posting this,.... well stated

  14. profile image0
    Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago

    For those who are a danger to children, imprisonment is the best answer, to make sure they cannot pose a future danger.  The problem is, that there seems to be an emphasis on the rights of the criminal in these case, rather than on the safety of children.

  15. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    If the assumption is that a castrated abuser is harmless, this is not true. Rape and abuse is a form of violence and the abuser has multiple weapons to call on.

    1. stclairjack profile image81
      stclairjackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      exactly!

      a rapist still has hands, still has feet, still has a mouth to spew hatefull things from,... as does a child molester,... more often than not,... the offending body part is NOT the one that seems to be targeted here,...

      i dont believe that 90% of sex offenders can be rehabilitated,... they are just damaged goods,... we should lock them up, period.

      nazi germany has been mentioned plenty of times here,... and the "slippery slope" as well,...

      for all the conversation,... we till have not developed a list of candidates,... name for me the qualifiers for sterilization please,....

      1 sex offenders? (this isnt logical since it does not remove from the offender the desire nor all the tools with wich he might satify it)

      2 piss poor excuses for parents?,... beethoven was raised in poverty by what many considder to be an abusive father,... but we got beethoven out of that.

      3 genetic disorders? could we eliminate things like downsyndrom from the gne pool,... should we?,.... recent studies are begining to answer why downsyndrom patients never get certain kinds of cancers,... the big ones, colon, lung, etc,.. the children we dont want may hold the gentic answer to curing cancer.


      i would like it if any one would please offer up sujestions who should sterilized.

  16. KC Santiago profile image60
    KC Santiagoposted 6 years ago

    There are certain books I think society would be better off did they not exist. Would I support book burning? NO, and for the same reason I would not support forced sterilization, society, especially modern America, has no idea when to quit.

    maybe it would start with child molesters and killer mothers, then it would go on to include down syndrome persons, followed by what some idiot psychologist says is a dangerous personality, and ultimately it would become a tool to attempt the control of ideas by limiting the population so a select few would have an easier time lording over the rest.

    I think the comment left by Doug Hughes highlights what would be my concern over a law such as this.

  17. KC Santiago profile image60
    KC Santiagoposted 6 years ago

    There are certain books I think society would be better off did they not exist. Would I support book burning? NO, and for the same reason I would not support forced sterilization, society, especially modern America, has no idea when to quit.

    maybe it would start with child molesters and killer mothers, then it would go on to include down syndrome persons, followed by what some idiot psychologist says is a dangerous personality, and ultimately it would become a tool to attempt the control of ideas by limiting the population so a select few would have an easier time lording over the rest.

    I think the comment left by Doug Hughes highlights what would be my concern over a law such as this.

  18. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Why are we still talking about this ridiculous topic?

    1. stclairjack profile image81
      stclairjackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      its only rediculous if its outside the relm of possibility,.... which history proves it is most certainly not,.... to talk about it is to keep it from happening again.

  19. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    To maintain awareness of the evil in some people's minds.

  20. Jo Woodward profile image60
    Jo Woodwardposted 6 years ago

    Rape is not about sex, it's about subjugation through violence and degradation. It doesn't matter if the victiom is a man, a woman or a child.  Sexual contact is the weapon of choice.
    Removing the sexual urges and the power to procreate will do nothing to stop the hatred that sparks the act.  If anything it will only re enforce the neagative feelings and make the perpetrator more likely to seek out other means of continuing to do violence.

 
working