An argument for forced sterilization

[madoka]

If there is an argument to be made for forced sterilization, here is the poster couple for that. Thanks to them, society has seven messed up children to care for.

http://news.yahoo.com/denver-parents-accused-keeping-4-boys-filth-221122574.html

A Denver couple accused of keeping four malnourished young children in a filthy apartment pleaded guilty to neglecting three other children under strikingly similar conditions in 2006, court records show.

The parents, Wayne Sperling and Lorinda Bailey, appeared in court Tuesday on felony child-abuse charges. Authorities say their four boys, ages 2 to 6, lived in a rank-smelling apartment littered with cat feces, flies and urine. The boys could not speak and only grunted, authorities said.

Police found similar conditions at the couple's apartment in 2006, when they had three other children, records released Tuesday show.

All seven kids were placed with a child services agency. No other details were available on their current status or whereabouts.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Bailey is free on bond. She declined to comment after leaving court Tuesday.

Sperling was still in custody, and his attorney made no public statement.

The war on men wages on. :whiste:

 

[Via]

What do you propose?

 

[SheHateMe]

Okay, I get what you're saying...but how could anyone have known what was going on? Everyone found out after the fact....so, are you going to sterilize people on the suspicion that they will break bad years or months down the road?

 

[arkcom]

Okay, I get what you're saying...but how could anyone have known what was going on? Everyone found out after the fact....so, are you going to sterilize people on the suspicion that they will break bad years or months down the road?

The first three kids that had to be rescued might have been a good hint.

 

[tcsenter]

Unfortunately, the old "three generations of imbeciles" laws permitting forced sterilization were heavily abused or co-opted, used to discriminate against 'undesirables' such as blacks, Indians, particular nationalities and whatnot, where there was no justification other than they were racially or ethnically undesirable. But the basis for those laws really were that some retarded or otherwise genetically deficient (mentally retarded or brain damaged) persons were producing offspring generation after generation who were just as fucked up as their progenitor, if not more.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Wasn't there a case in 2011/12 regarding a drug addict women who already had 6-8 children in neglect that the judge ordered to be 'fixed'? Not sure if I am remembering the facts correctly, but I seem to have a faint recollection of this kind of indoctrination.

I do believe there are cases that this should be implemented and it sounds like this couple of good candidates.

 

[nehalem256]

The parents told police the children have their own language and grunt at each other. But the couple insisted the children were able to speak to them.

 

[child of wonder]

This is why I support the government subsidizing and providing free condoms and basic birth control pills for anyone who wants them. In fact, if you're receiving certain government benefits it should be a requirement.

 

[exdeath]

Sigh. I'm going to get dog piled by giggling nieces and nephews this weekend and not think about this shit.

 

[purbeast0]

This is why I support the government subsidizing and providing free condoms and basic birth control pills for anyone who wants them. In fact, if you're receiving certain government benefits it should be a requirement.

while i agree, there is absolutely no way it could be enforcable for them to actually be using them.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I think incentivized sterilization would be better. Just a standing offer of $1000 paid to anyone who submits to voluntary sterilization. The kind of people who would do that are the ones we probably want out of the gene pool anyway.

 

[Juddog]

I think incentivized sterilization would be better. Just a standing offer of $1000 paid to anyone who submits to voluntary sterilization. The kind of people who would do that are the ones we probably want out of the gene pool anyway.

^^ True - the first ones to line up for that would be the crackheads looking for money for crack, which are the types of people we wouldn't want in the gene pool in the first place.

That's actually a bloody brilliant idea!

 

[nehalem256]

^^ True - the first ones to line up for that would be the crackheads looking for money for crack, which are the types of people we wouldn't want in the gene pool in the first place.

That's actually a bloody brilliant idea!

Try reading the article again:

Police began investigating the new case 10 days ago. Bailey took her youngest son, age 2, to St. Joseph's Children's Hospital on Sept. 29 for a cut on his forehead that she said happened after a fall

...

Sperling told investigators he was unemployed and has been the boys' primary guardian. He said he mopped frequently but that with four boys, he had trouble keeping the apartment clean. He said he intended to begin home-schooling the 6-year-old.

The parents told police the children have their own language and grunt at each other. But the couple insisted the children were able to speak to them

I didn't see anything in the article about drug use. In fact it seems that the parents see nothing wrong with their situation.

Basically the idea for "voluntary sterilization" rests on crazy and/or stupid people not being crazy and/or stupid. Which seems like a pretty substantial flaw.

Although this issue really does work as a good litmus test for whether or not people really do care about a children. If you support the "right" of people like those in the article to have children then clearly you don't care about children and only view them as hostages to further your ideological agenda.

 

[Juddog]

Try reading the article again:

Try reading who I was quoting again; I wasn't commenting on the article. Reading comprehension 101 fail.

 

[madoka]

I think incentivized sterilization would be better. Just a standing offer of $1000 paid to anyone who submits to voluntary sterilization. The kind of people who would do that are the ones we probably want out of the gene pool anyway.

The problem with incentivized sterilization would be that inevitably the poor would be overrepresented. Then that dominoes in to minority groups that are overrepresented amongst the poor. Then you get cries of racism.

Just sterilize all those that get convicted of child abuse, child molestation, or incest. These people have no business around children.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The problem with incentivized sterilization would be that inevitably the poor would be overrepresented. Then that dominoes in to minority groups that are overrepresented amongst the poor. Then you get cries of racism.

Just sterilize all those that get convicted of child abuse, child molestation, or incest. These people have no business around children.

Why shouldn't the poor be overrepresented? One of the main things that would really help a poor person make a good life for themselves is not being saddled with a brood of unwanted children. Besides, there's no reason to make the sterilization an irreversible procedure in this case.

They can get the $1000 at the time of the procedure, but if they want it reversed they have to pay the $1000 back to have that done. People who have the procedure to start with are obviously so broke that they shouldn't have children, while the ones who can come up with the $1000 to get "unfixed" have bettered themselves enough to be trusted to raise children properly.

Regardless of perceptions of racism, it's purely about a person's general capability to support themselves and their children. If a race is overrepresented in being incapable of supporting children, they need to correct that. Not having the children they can't support will go a long way toward that goal.

 

[nehalem256]

Try reading who I was quoting again; I wasn't commenting on the article. Reading comprehension 101 fail.

So then you are conceding that your "solution" does nothing to combat the issue of the article

 

[Juddog]

So then you are conceding that your "solution" does nothing to combat the issue of the article

I never said my "solution" had to do with the article, so there is nothing to concede; I was pointing out that another member posted something brilliant. This isn't P&N where everything is either one side or the other side, it's off topic, so sit back and enjoy it.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Make them marry toasters, problem solved.

 

[MrDudeMan]

The picture of the kid with casts on his arms and legs is infuriating.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Okay, I get what you're saying...but how could anyone have known what was going on? Everyone found out after the fact....so, are you going to sterilize people on the suspicion that they will break bad years or months down the road?

If you are on government assistance, on the third child the female and male both should be sterilized or have their benefits removed and all children removed from the home.

 

[SheHateMe]

If you are on government assistance, on the third child the female and male both should be sterilized or have their benefits removed and all children removed from the home.

And who is going to take care of the kids? The system is already filled with unwanted children.

If they are lucky, they can get sent to a Foster who is only in it for the paycheck and abuses the kids. OR, they can be sent to a group home where the other kids are sure to physically and/or possibly sexually abuse them. That's almost like being back at square one!! :sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

And who is going to take care of the kids? The system is already filled with unwanted children.

If they are lucky, they can get sent to a Foster who is only in it for the paycheck and abuses the kids. OR, they can be sent to a group home where the other kids are sure to physically and/or possibly sexually abuse them. That's almost like being back at square one!! :sneaky:

Better 3 kids sent to foster homes than 7 kids sent to foster homes

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And who is going to take care of the kids? The system is already filled with unwanted children.

If they are lucky, they can get sent to a Foster who is only in it for the paycheck and abuses the kids. OR, they can be sent to a group home where the other kids are sure to physically and/or possibly sexually abuse them. That's almost like being back at square one!! :sneaky:

That's why it's an either or choice.


So they're great parents that continually make bad decisions, if they're on the gov't dole then they CLEARLY should not be having any more children anyway, so what's the problem?

Get everything tied up or scooped out and continue cashing that check with your two lovely children.