N.C. Woman Among 65,000 Sterilized by Gov't, Often Without Their Knowledge

[quote name='The story']They were thought to be poor because they had bad genes or bad inheritance, if you will. And so they would be the focus of the sterilization."[/quote]

WTF? If they thought being poor was a disease, I'd hate to see what they thought mentally handicapped people were.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']So how exactly do you sterlize people without them knowing? With a woman I suppose you could possibly due to after childbirth.[/QUOTE]


That's what it says in the article. After the one women they interviewed gave birth,
they sterilized her.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']That's what it says in the article. After the one women they interviewed gave birth,
they sterilized her.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it also mentioned men being sterilized.
 
I'm all for steralization, but not secret sterilazation. When that shit is underground, you get less-than-credible people deciding who needs it. But yeah, you always see stories about the drug-addicted parents who are about to have their 8th kid, yet we can do nothing as a society about this. I'm all for those people being fixed.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I'm all for steralization, but not secret sterilazation. When that shit is underground, you get less-than-credible people deciding who needs it. But yeah, you always see stories about the drug-addicted parents who are about to have their 8th kid, yet we can do nothing as a society about this. I'm all for those people being fixed.[/QUOTE]

So in your perfect world, who decides who is "messed up" enough to be "fixed"? I guess you don't see anything wrong with the government interfering with someone's basic human rights, but I (and I imagine most others) do.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So in your perfect world, who decides who is "messed up" enough to be "fixed"? I guess you don't see anything wrong with the government interfering with someone's basic human rights, but I (and I imagine most others) do.[/QUOTE]


I don't have as much of a problem with fixing people, as I do with the issue of what type of person would qualify, and if you got it wrong (ie. person found guilty then later found innocent) there's no going back.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So in your perfect world, who decides who is "messed up" enough to be "fixed"? I guess you don't see anything wrong with the government interfering with someone's basic human rights, but I (and I imagine most others) do.[/QUOTE]

I knew you'd want crack fiends to pump out as many kids as possible. It's the kind of crazy policy that I'd expect someone who belongs to the new Republican party, AKA the pro-suffering party.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If we just had free abortions for everyone on demand we wouldn't have to worry about sterilization at all...[/QUOTE]

Wait, shouldn't a libertarian, who believes the government should stay out of our lives, have no problem with abortions? And besides, this makes no sense. To stop people who would have and keep children, we make it easier for those who don't want them to get rid of them?
 
Do some research on the founding of Planned Parenthood and you'll find that their founder, Margaret Sanger, was all in favor of eugenics.

Funny how one of the left's most hallowed organizations was founded for this very reason.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, shouldn't a libertarian, who believes the government should stay out of our lives, have no problem with abortions? And besides, this makes no sense. To stop people who would have and keep children, we make it easier for those who don't want them to get rid of them?[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with abortions. I see them walking around all the time. Some of them even speak. They tell me I must pay for the downtrodden because they are more deserving and I am a selfish bastard.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do some research on the founding of Planned Parenthood and you'll find that their founder, Margaret Sanger, was all in favor of eugenics.

Funny how one of the left's most hallowed organizations was founded for this very reason.[/QUOTE]

No, she was only in favor of eugenics at times, and only for mentally handicapped people. Her main goal was pushing for the availabilty of birth control.

With the suppression of the radical left after World War I, Sanger decided to expand support for birth control by promoting it on the basis of medical and public health needs. In 1917 she established a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she embarked on a campaign of education and publicity designed to win mainstream support for birth control by opening the American Birth Control League. She focused many of her efforts on gaining support from the medical profession, social workers, and the liberal wing of the eugenics movement. She increasingly rationalized birth control as a means of reducing genetically transmitted mental or physical defects, and at times supported sterilization for the mentally incompetent. While she did not advocate efforts to limit population growth solely on the basis of class, ethnicity or race, and refused to encourage positive race-based eugenics, Sanger's reputation was permanently tainted by her association with the reactionary wing of the eugenics movement.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/msbio.htm
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do some research on the founding of Planned Parenthood and you'll find that their founder, Margaret Sanger, was all in favor of eugenics.[/QUOTE]

Did someone say eugenics?
kahn.JPG


"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him!"
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I don't have a problem with abortions. I see them walking around all the time. Some of them even speak. They tell me I must pay for the downtrodden because they are more deserving and I am a selfish bastard.[/QUOTE]


Aborted fetuses talk to you?
 
Are people somehow shock by this? Remeber at one point they used to ask women if they want to be sterilized right after giving birth. Of course that's illegal now.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Reminds me of that episode of That's My Bush.[/QUOTE]

That was genius. They should totally release that show on DVD, but I know they won't because... sob, boo-hoo... it's not nice to make fun of the President being a complete moron!
 
[quote name='camoor']I knew you'd want crack fiends to pump out as many kids as possible. It's the kind of crazy policy that I'd expect someone who belongs to the new Republican party, AKA the pro-suffering party.[/QUOTE]

You talk about Republicans (note, not me) infringing on people's civil liberties, but you're fine with taking away people's reproductive freedom? Your "logic" baffles me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You talk about Republicans (note, not me) infringing on people's civil liberties, but you're fine with taking away people's reproductive freedom? Your "logic" baffles me.[/QUOTE]

I'm pointing out your use of the term "reproductive freedom", which is like saying that you were infringing on somebody's right to murder somebody else. When there is another party involved (note, in this instance, the child), it's no longer about freedom.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']Did someone say eugenics?
kahn.JPG


"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him!"[/QUOTE]

I wasn't going to do it but since I haven't seen anyone do it yet -

"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You talk about Republicans (note, not me) infringing on people's civil liberties, but you're fine with taking away people's reproductive freedom? Your "logic" baffles me.[/QUOTE]

Calm down, I'm not talking "good christian folk" here.

Crack fiends. AKA criminals who have proven (through the act of giving birth to a crack baby) that they are going to make a human being with lifelong health problems/low mortality because they need welfare money and cannot resist "getting high".

I know you don't understand my world philosophy. It's about human rights for real people (as defined by a consensus of philosophers and NOT theologians / politicians) and reducing suffering in the world.

If you use wreckless judgement and in an illegal act of self-interest you kill or seriously brain-damage a man with a gun, you should lose the right to carry guns for the rest of your adult life.

I don't buy the "I was an addict" excuse. Noone came down and forced that crack in your pipe, or that heroin in your veins. As a society we've got to be concerned with the lives of our future citizens, and if the crack addict proves themself unable to avoid ruining the lives of others then they should be locked up to protect you and me, and if they give birth they should be sterilized to protect potential future victims.
 
I'm all for eugenics.

But I would use it to eliminate people I didn't like. Contribute to society, or be removed from it.

You're all lucky I don't rule the world.


Yet.
 
[quote name='camoor']Calm down, I'm not talking "good christian folk" here.

Crack fiends. AKA criminals who have proven (through the act of giving birth to a crack baby) that they are going to make a human being with lifelong health problems/low mortality because they need welfare money and cannot resist "getting high".

I know you don't understand my world philosophy. It's about human rights for real people (as defined by a consensus of philosophers and NOT theologians / politicians) and reducing suffering in the world.

If you use wreckless judgement and in an illegal act of self-interest you kill or seriously brain-damage a man with a gun, you should lose the right to carry guns for the rest of your adult life.

I don't buy the "I was an addict" excuse. Noone came down and forced that crack in your pipe, or that heroin in your veins. As a society we've got to be concerned with the lives of our future citizens, and if the crack addict proves themself unable to avoid ruining the lives of others then they should be locked up to protect you and me, and if they give birth they should be sterilized to protect potential future victims.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I understand you. In your world 1984 would become a reality rather quickly. You don't think people with these sorts of powers, such as determining that someone should be sterilized, would abuse them? You'd better believe it. Your world involves government in determining whether someone can reproduce or not. This is a very scary concept to me and I'm sure many others.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I'm pointing out your use of the term "reproductive freedom", which is like saying that you were infringing on somebody's right to murder somebody else. When there is another party involved (note, in this instance, the child), it's no longer about freedom.[/QUOTE]

I'm not getting your meaning, unless you are suggesting that two people making a child infringes on the child's rights, in which case again I'm not sure how you are suggesting it is taking away someone's freedom. Freedom not to be born?
 
[quote name='camoor']Calm down, I'm not talking "good christian folk" here.

Crack fiends. AKA criminals who have proven (through the act of giving birth to a crack baby) that they are going to make a human being with lifelong health problems/low mortality because they need welfare money and cannot resist "getting high".

I know you don't understand my world philosophy. It's about human rights for real people (as defined by a consensus of philosophers and NOT theologians / politicians) and reducing suffering in the world.

If you use wreckless judgement and in an illegal act of self-interest you kill or seriously brain-damage a man with a gun, you should lose the right to carry guns for the rest of your adult life.

I don't buy the "I was an addict" excuse. Noone came down and forced that crack in your pipe, or that heroin in your veins. As a society we've got to be concerned with the lives of our future citizens, and if the crack addict proves themself unable to avoid ruining the lives of others then they should be locked up to protect you and me, and if they give birth they should be sterilized to protect potential future victims.[/QUOTE]

Maybe if we actually improved treatment for drug addicts (we often refuse to treat those who actually want help), that may help with the drug problem. Maybe if we worked on improving schools, and after school programs, that may help with the drug problem. Maybe if we provided services so that single parents didn't have to leave their kids alone all day, that may help with the drug problem.

What do you do with drug addicted parents (whose kids are still within reach, maybe their parents have custody), who recover? Do you bar them from their kids, even though the kids know they're their parents? That would harm the child.

So you arrest a 19 year old heroine addict for robbing a bank, but for how long? And if they have lost the rights of "real people", what do you do when they're released? Or do you plan on arresting a 19 year old drug addict (maybe someday former drug addict) and keeping him/her behind bars her whole life for robbing a bank (not a crime that warrants, or recieves, life sentences)? If not, you locked away a person for x amount of years, only to release them with no work skills, no real world social skills, and a criminal record. Even if they kicked their habit, they can't do much with their life and are much more likely to go back to their drug of choice. If you got someone who has become violent or dangerous due to their drug, then put them in a place that can help them, and give them the skills to function effectively in society. You don't want to make it impossible for them to improve themselves upon their release.

Drug addicts don't sit there and say "hey, heroines a cool drug, I think I'm gonna get addicted and spend my life savings on it". Almost all drugs are originally used for social purposes, more often then not people are fine, but sometimes it gets out of hand. You can blame the person for getting to that point, but to say I don't buy the "I was an addict excuse" shows a complete lack of understanding of what an addiction to powerful substances can do. These aren't people who sit there an think through what they do. A person could becomes paranoid and think they're friend is going to kill them, so they kill them in self defense (at least in the addicts eyes). One of my friends works in a psych ward every other semester (for college), there was one kid there who used to deliver drugs when he was young teenager. One time this kid went to an apartment, knocked a few times and no one answered. He started to walk away, and a few seconds later the guy started shooting through his door. The guy was on drugs. His intent was not to plan out a murder, but to defend himself from the people he believed were trying to harm him (sadly though, some addicts end up being killed by people, If I remember correctly, more die from violence then the actual drug, since most know when a drug is too strong and balance it out. Most overdoses are by inexperienced users). If you plan on ever releasing a guy like that, you better damn well be sure he has recovered and can move on with his life. And I don't see how you could twist the law to lock up that man for the rest of life.

And what about alcohol? Why not lock up and sterilize all the alcoholics as well? We could start with the homeless people in your nearest city, who cares if they weren't alcoholics until they lost their homes, who actually wants to take the time to help them?

This definition of "real people" confuses me. If you want a just society, everyone must be treated as "real people", including those who are in prison and will be released back into that society. Locking them up as punishment really won't accomplish much in the big picture (obviously anything thing you do will have a few successes), and will do nothing to improve society. I'd argue that those who will never be released should also be treated as "real people" for two reasons, one they could be wrongly convicted and, two, that's how a just society is run. But you definately have to focus on rehabilition, not punishment, with those who will be released. To do otherwise is simply wishfull thinking and short sighted.

Also, this term "real people", if I remember correctly, you seem to have a problem with things such as guantanamo bay and other detention centers we run. The prisoners there are essentially viewed as, in practice not officially, as subhuman. That's exactly what you're doing, except you're just picking out a different group.

Damn, that started off as a short, 2 sentence response.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm not getting your meaning, unless you are suggesting that two people making a child infringes on the child's rights, in which case again I'm not sure how you are suggesting it is taking away someone's freedom. Freedom not to be born?[/QUOTE]

I thought he was complaining about abortion, and saying it's not your reproductive freedom when you're killing an unborn child.

Also (talking to camoor but referring to you), taking his 1984 comment into considering, you have to realize that you cannot make laws absolutely specific. They have to be made with the realization they will be abused, you just have to do you best to limit the ways they can be abused.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm not getting your meaning, unless you are suggesting that two people making a child infringes on the child's rights, in which case again I'm not sure how you are suggesting it is taking away someone's freedom. Freedom not to be born?[/QUOTE]

What I mean is that we should be looking at the condition of the parents, for the wellbeing of the unconceived child. If you have two people that can phsyically make a child (hell, most men and women have the correct plumbing for the job), it doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

A few examples:

Both parents are in their mid 50s, and are crazy. They have publically said that they want to conceive a child, so they may then cook it and eat it in a stew. So what are we supposed to do as a society? Allow them to conceive, wait the 9 months, and then wait for them to try it? Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child.

You have a couple living in a mobile-home park, on welfare. The father works at Walmart and is pulling in minimum wage. The whole family lives in poverty and filth. Did I mention that they already have 6 children? Do you think these people should be allowed to to have another child? And I'm not saying poor people are bad people or however you might think to spin it. I'm saying that this child is going to be born into a situation in which it won't be able to receive proper care. In this family's case, 6 is 4 children too many. Common sense would say: Don't let these people have another child.

Same example as above, but with no father (as is often the case). Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child.

Both parents are 15 years old, and biologically cable of having a child. They're also both Meth addicts, and they both have histories of sexual abuse. Both people are severely mentally disturbed (not their fault, but here we are). Their parents don't want them together, and in order to get revenge, the young couple decides to spitefully have a child. Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child. (In the case of young people, I wouldn't necessarily go sterilazation, but perhaps mandatory birth control until they're older. And in this specific case, after an assigned period of therapy.)

My point is that while we are indeed physically capable of creating a child, it doesn't give us the right to do it. Facist you say? I don't think so. We have the physical ability to do a lot of things, but if this encroaches upon another person's wellbeing or freedom, then we aren't allowed to. I can, as I said before, drive my car through a crowded park. There is nothing physically stopping me from doing this, but in doing so, I would be harming other people. So it goes with bringing a child into this world without being ready or able.

I realize that we're probably a long way off from a world in which reproduction is positively controlled. And none of this slippery-slope stuff about the government having shady secret organizations that kill babies and such. I'm just talking about common sense. Mentally healthy people that have the finances, time, and resources to adequately raise a child so that it doesn't grow up to be a criminal or sexual abuser. That's it! Common sense you say? I would think so too, especially in todays world, when things like sexual abuse of a child are so rediculously common.

So where do we start?

Step 1: Any and all sex offenders are steralized. That's a great start.
Step 2: Anyone in prison who's either been in twice, or has been in for at least a year.

Those are two things that I think we could actually accomplish within the next decade, but we probably won't. If you think step 2 is a little harsh, I say that it's not hard to stay out of jail. I would say that most of us haven't been to jail. I'll also recommend that you watch Cops, and look at the kind of people that are having kids today. And you know what? We don't need any more 4 year old boys having to watch their gang-member father beat the crap out of their mother. And I don't think that's facist or unAmerican.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Oh, I understand you. In your world 1984 would become a reality rather quickly. You don't think people with these sorts of powers, such as determining that someone should be sterilized, would abuse them? You'd better believe it. Your world involves government in determining whether someone can reproduce or not. This is a very scary concept to me and I'm sure many others.[/QUOTE]

We're entering your dark ages. No money for stem cells, anti-abortion judges forced down our throats by the ultra-conservative right, creationism invading classrooms and 10 commandments invading courtrooms.

Your world includes society sanctioning kids being born with no eyes, limbs, or a part of their brain because, hey, it was the mother's right after having 3 crack babies already -- never mind the suffering and damage she has caused. That is a very saddening concept to me and I'm sure many others.

I don't buy your slippery slope arguements - it's not "anarchistic reproductive freedom for all" or "totalian opression from imperial forces and thought police". There is a middle ground that I am proposing, based on a respected, fool-proof scientific opinion about the baby's health when it's born, so quit the "chicken little" act.

After all, as this article proves, there was already a fascist eugenics experiment in America like the one you describe in your "doomsday scenario" and cooler heads prevailed and reined it in.
 
Alonzo, yeah, maybe rehabilitation programs should get better but that's a different discussion.

I'm only trying to capture the extreme cases where kids will be affected, like AIDS parents and crack fiends who have already had a child in this condition. I guess I'd need a medical opinion on the damage caused by alcohol before making an opinion about that.
 
[quote name='camoor']I guess I'd need a medical opinion on the damage caused by alcohol before making an opinion about that.[/QUOTE]

2 words. Down's Syndrome.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If we just had free abortions for everyone on demand we wouldn't have to worry about sterilization at all...[/QUOTE]

Your kidding right?
 
[quote name='evilmax17']What I mean is that we should be looking at the condition of the parents, for the wellbeing of the unconceived child. If you have two people that can phsyically make a child (hell, most men and women have the correct plumbing for the job), it doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

A few examples:

Both parents are in their mid 50s, and are crazy. They have publically said that they want to conceive a child, so they may then cook it and eat it in a stew. So what are we supposed to do as a society? Allow them to conceive, wait the 9 months, and then wait for them to try it? Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child.

You have a couple living in a mobile-home park, on welfare. The father works at Walmart and is pulling in minimum wage. The whole family lives in poverty and filth. Did I mention that they already have 6 children? Do you think these people should be allowed to to have another child? And I'm not saying poor people are bad people or however you might think to spin it. I'm saying that this child is going to be born into a situation in which it won't be able to receive proper care. In this family's case, 6 is 4 children too many. Common sense would say: Don't let these people have another child.

Same example as above, but with no father (as is often the case). Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child.

Both parents are 15 years old, and biologically cable of having a child. They're also both Meth addicts, and they both have histories of sexual abuse. Both people are severely mentally disturbed (not their fault, but here we are). Their parents don't want them together, and in order to get revenge, the young couple decides to spitefully have a child. Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child. (In the case of young people, I wouldn't necessarily go sterilazation, but perhaps mandatory birth control until they're older. And in this specific case, after an assigned period of therapy.)

My point is that while we are indeed physically capable of creating a child, it doesn't give us the right to do it. Facist you say? I don't think so. We have the physical ability to do a lot of things, but if this encroaches upon another person's wellbeing or freedom, then we aren't allowed to. I can, as I said before, drive my car through a crowded park. There is nothing physically stopping me from doing this, but in doing so, I would be harming other people. So it goes with bringing a child into this world without being ready or able.

I realize that we're probably a long way off from a world in which reproduction is positively controlled. And none of this slippery-slope stuff about the government having shady secret organizations that kill babies and such. I'm just talking about common sense. Mentally healthy people that have the finances, time, and resources to adequately raise a child so that it doesn't grow up to be a criminal or sexual abuser. That's it! Common sense you say? I would think so too, especially in todays world, when things like sexual abuse of a child are so rediculously common.

So where do we start?

Step 1: Any and all sex offenders are steralized. That's a great start.
Step 2: Anyone in prison who's either been in twice, or has been in for at least a year.

Those are two things that I think we could actually accomplish within the next decade, but we probably won't. If you think step 2 is a little harsh, I say that it's not hard to stay out of jail. I would say that most of us haven't been to jail. I'll also recommend that you watch Cops, and look at the kind of people that are having kids today. And you know what? We don't need any more 4 year old boys having to watch their gang-member father beat the crap out of their mother. And I don't think that's facist or unAmerican.[/QUOTE]

You know, I agree with you that many people having kids today shouldn't be having them. There are a lot of things a lot of people are doing today that I don't think they should be doing. I'm sure there are a lot of people doing things today that you think they shouldn't be doing. But I'm not for making a law that says they can't do them unless they are hurting someone else, generally. Your argument boils down to they are hurting the child. We just don't have enough information or knowledge to predict the future that well. I do sympathize with your sex offenders idea, although one conviction is pretty harsh when you have to know mistakes are made in our legal system. Maybe repeat offenders, or a three strikes law or something.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You know, I agree with you that many people having kids today shouldn't be having them. There are a lot of things a lot of people are doing today that I don't think they should be doing. I'm sure there are a lot of people doing things today that you think they shouldn't be doing. But I'm not for making a law that says they can't do them unless they are hurting someone else, generally. Your argument boils down to they are hurting the child. We just don't have enough information or knowledge to predict the future that well.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? You have got to be the most scientifically and medically ignorant poster on this board (well, maybe you're a close second to Chunk)

You think that if a pregnant lady smokes crack a few times a day, there is a chance that her baby may be perfectly healthy? You need to go to an inner city hospital, your complete ignorance is really starting to offend me.
 
[quote name='camoor']You think that if a pregnant lady smokes crack a few times a day, there is a chance that her baby may be perfectly healthy? You need to go to an inner city hospital, your complete ignorance is really starting to offend me.[/QUOTE]

kirk.jpg


"I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You know, I agree with you that many people having kids today shouldn't be having them. There are a lot of things a lot of people are doing today that I don't think they should be doing. I'm sure there are a lot of people doing things today that you think they shouldn't be doing. But I'm not for making a law that says they can't do them unless they are hurting someone else, generally. Your argument boils down to they are hurting the child. We just don't have enough information or knowledge to predict the future that well. I do sympathize with your sex offenders idea, although one conviction is pretty harsh when you have to know mistakes are made in our legal system. Maybe repeat offenders, or a three strikes law or something.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong. We have plenty of information and knowledge to predict the future. We have STATISTICS!!! We have RESEARCH!!! We have POLLS!!!

[quote name='camoor']Are you serious? You have got to be the most scientifically and medically ignorant poster on this board (well, maybe you're a close second to Chunk)

You think that if a pregnant lady smokes crack a few times a day, there is a chance that her baby may be perfectly healthy? You need to go to an inner city hospital, your complete ignorance is really starting to offend me.[/QUOTE]

I missed the part where elprincipe was talking about crackheads. Personally, I haven't taken a stroll down to the inner city hospital in the last couple of years, and I don't doubt that crack can be very harmful to unborn children. However, I am grateful to have a healthy crack baby younger sister. I would like to think that she can have a happy life, even though the odds are stacked against her with the crackhead mom and being one of 11 kids to a poor family. I would hate to think that people aren't advocating sterilization of the poor, but I don't see how it would be otherwise. If being poor increases the chances of being a failure in life (criminal, drug addict, whore, rapper) exponentially (as the statistics and research referenced and bandied about so often in this forum surely claim), it seems to be a reasonably logical step to stop the poor from having kids to fix this problem.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I missed the part where elprincipe was talking about crackheads. Personally, I haven't taken a stroll down to the inner city hospital in the last couple of years, and I don't doubt that crack can be very harmful to unborn children. However, I am grateful to have a healthy crack baby younger sister. I would like to think that she can have a happy life, even though the odds are stacked against her with the crackhead mom and being one of 11 kids to a poor family. I would hate to think that people aren't advocating sterilization of the poor, but I don't see how it would be otherwise. If being poor increases the chances of being a failure in life (criminal, drug addict, whore, rapper) exponentially (as the statistics and research referenced and bandied about so often in this forum surely claim), it seems to be a reasonably logical step to stop the poor from having kids to fix this problem.[/QUOTE]

Read all of the thread! I only advocate sterilization of crackheads who have already had one child in this condtion. Nowhere would I ever suggest that sterialization of everyone who is poor should occur, I don't support fascist oligarchies.

Elprincipe called my idea to sterilize of crackheads who have already had one child in this condtion as something that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984 novel.

From now on, I will simply give you a RTFT.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I missed the part where elprincipe was talking about crackheads. Personally, I haven't taken a stroll down to the inner city hospital in the last couple of years, and I don't doubt that crack can be very harmful to unborn children. However, I am grateful to have a healthy crack baby younger sister. I would like to think that she can have a happy life, even though the odds are stacked against her with the crackhead mom and being one of 11 kids to a poor family. I would hate to think that people aren't advocating sterilization of the poor, but I don't see how it would be otherwise. If being poor increases the chances of being a failure in life (criminal, drug addict, whore, rapper) exponentially (as the statistics and research referenced and bandied about so often in this forum surely claim), it seems to be a reasonably logical step to stop the poor from having kids to fix this problem.[/QUOTE]

It's ok if you're poor, and it's ok if you're poor and have a child. If you have the resources to provide proper care for that child, then I have no problem with you at all.

It is not ok to be poor and have 11 children. Hell, it's not ok to have 11 children no matter what, as there is NO way you could give all of them the proper attention that they would need in order to mentally develop healthily.

I would use the word irresponsible for people that have more than 3 children (4 MAX, and that's pushing it), and that's me being nice. 11 is just out-and-out abuse.

Please note that this post wasn't meant to be an attack on you, which I'm sure it could easily be seen as. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top