FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Sterilize the poor?





quex
A state representative from Louisiana (USA) has recently suggested the following plan to "correct" the balance of impoverished, uneducated people to wealthy, educated people:

1) Offer free tubal ligation and vasectomy to the "poor" population, with a $1,000 USD incentive bonus.
2) Provide tax breaks to wealthy, educated couples who have additional children.

Would you support a plan like this in your own country? What if the words "poor" and "wealthy" were replaced with "mentally handicapped" and "mentally gifted"? In either case, it sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me.

Read the article here.
liljp617
Sounds pretty ridiculous. How about this state rep. work on the state of elementary and secondary education -.- And raise the minimum wage...

Poverty = Lack of education
quex
liljp617 wrote:
Sounds pretty ridiculous. How about this state rep. work on the state of elementary and secondary education -.- And raise the minimum wage...

Poverty = Lack of education


BRAVO, yes. I agree. However, there is one drawback; education takes a long time, a lot of money, and serious commitment on the part of the system. Children take nigh 20 years to grow up, and humans live for a long time. Preventing the birth of children into situations that would most likely require the full power (time, money) of the state education system to reach equivalent degrees of opportunity as those born into wealthy, educated families is temptingly convenient.

Still morally objectionable, though.
Libby
Education doesn't solve poverty.

Poverty is a necessary part of capitalism. Somebody has to do the dirty jobs and be paid shit wages for them. Plus, jobs are going to always be coming and going and have changing necessary qualifications so there are always going to be unemployed people.

The more educated the average person gets, that just means anyone who is less educated than average is going to have a harder time getting a job.

So when a high school education was "average", if you didn't have a high school degree, you didn't get a job and you were poor.

So everyone's like, get your high school degree! You'll stop being poor! That pushes the average up to an associates degree. Now a college degree is average, and your high school degree isn't helping you as much.

It's like inflation or something.

I think if there was less inequity in education, that would HELP, and it would have many many other benefits for the poor, but it wouldn't end poverty at all.


And OBVIOUSLY STERILIZING THE POOR IS A REPREHENSIBLE IDEA. Anyone who even THINKS of something like that ---ds asjkawlejr

I can't go on
liljp617
(I speak from a US perspective as it's all I truly know)

Disagree. Acceptance of widespread poverty as a mandatory part of capitalism is acceptance of failure as a country, society, and race.

When there are people who can't tell you how many sides a triangle has or solve a basic linear equation, you've failed on the educational spectrum (and on a higher level). You can't expect to have an intelligent, prosperous, quality state/country when you have people such as that living on sidewalks.

Call me idealistic, but poverty isn't "necessary." Nobody 'deserves' to be in poverty from birth and certain groups of people shouldn't have to fight their whole life treading water. There are solutions. If nothing else, the percentage of people in poverty should be so minuscule that statistics are useless/unnecessary (analogous to Switzerland not keeping gun crime statistics because the amount is so low).

I'm not saying poverty and unemployment can definitely be wiped out completely. It's such a feat, nobody would dare take it on. There will always be people unemployed as business do go under unexpectedly. But there needs to be a solid system in place for those people who suddenly lose jobs/get injured/etc. while they can get on their feet. It is also my opinion that you don't simply accept poverty just because you think/know it's inevitable. That's kind of like saying war is inevitable, so we shouldn't do our best to fight against it and avoid it. Acceptance isn't the answer in my opinion.
bigt
liljp617 wrote:
Sounds pretty ridiculous. How about this state rep. work on the state of elementary and secondary education -.- And raise the minimum wage...

Poverty = Lack of education


I agree that the idea is ridiculous and our education system needs an overhaul, but raising the minimum wage actually hurts the market (we can talk econ in another section though). I like the end behind the proposed "castration", but it's not a means to get there. The end here, IMHO, is decreasing those in the population that seem to not want to better themselves or contribute to society. Americans have forgotten that the ability for anyone to become a first generation millionaire is what makes the nation great. But there aren't that many millionaires b/c it takes hard work. "the pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean entitlements for everyone and we will all live in luxury.

And the education system shouldn't be the black hole for money it has become. If something hasn't worked right in years and throwing gobs of money at it didn't help, more money probably won't help. I'm not saying teachers are overpaid either; the opposite in fact. There's too much admin and BS and money doesn't go where it needs to go, like more to the teachers.

Oh well....off the soap box now and I'm tired. Have a good one!
handfleisch
Quex, thanks a lot for this article. Poor people, African Americans and Native Americans were sterilized in the USA in the 1930's on when the medical techniques were first developed and Eugenics was popular. Forced sterilization has happened around the world into the 21st Century (against Gypsies in the Czech Republic for example). It's a fact that Hitler learned from and was inspired by these things going on in the US (and he ran with and implemented them in a much worse way).

For more info please read
Dark Chapter of American History:
U.S. Court Battle Over Forced Sterilization

http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm
Libby
I never said poverty was inevitable. It's definitely not acceptable. I just said poverty is a necessary part of CAPITALISM. There's a difference there if you can catch it.
liljp617
Libby wrote:
I never said poverty was inevitable. It's definitely not acceptable. I just said poverty is a necessary part of CAPITALISM. There's a difference there if you can catch it.


It's not necessary to have people trying to live on <$10,000 a year.
handfleisch
The only people who should be sterilized are politicians who suggest such a thing...
quex
Libby wrote:
I never said poverty was inevitable. It's definitely not acceptable. I just said poverty is a necessary part of CAPITALISM. There's a difference there if you can catch it.


I was going to reply to your first post, but I like this one better.

I agree that it is unavoidable in Capitalism. That's the system. However, there should still be room in a conscientious Capitalist system for people to make a living wage. Capitalism, as envisioned philosophically, is a system of haves and have-mores, not haves and have-nots. Unfortunately, US Capitalism is too convoluted to comply with the philosophical ideal anymore.
jmi256
Wasn't it Jonathan Swift who wrote the satire about the Irish being so poor and hungry, yet they have so many children that they should just eat their children?
quex
jmi256 wrote:
Wasn't it Jonathan Swift who wrote the satire about the Irish being so poor and hungry, yet they have so many children that they should just eat their children?


Yes! "A Modest Proposal" by Swift, 1729. One of the first and best snark pieces.

Soylent Green, anyone?
coolclay
That's freakin messed up. I think anyone with that type of belief needs to be fixed themselves from having kids. Thats just not right. As much as I believe the world is becoming stupider from those not so intelligent breeding like rabbits (Idiocracy), I still don't believe anyone should have their right to reproduce taken away.
ocalhoun
coolclay wrote:
their right to reproduce

Its a right now?
quex
ocalhoun wrote:
coolclay wrote:
their right to reproduce

Its a right now?


o.o This is a good point. I don't think I've ever considered the legal ramifications of whether or not reproduction is a right. Thus far, a woman's right to choose NOT to reproduce has been protected...

If reproduction is a right, does that mean people who have naturally become sterile are being deprived of their rights? Before you answer, consider this: if you cannot find a partner who will willingly reproduce with you, does your right to reproduce justify forced intercourse? Should the government step in to help those who wish to reproduce but cannot, either for medical reasons or lack of a partner?

And a question that I adore, in argument to the often misconstrued "right to life": are dead people being deprived of their right to live?

I am strongly convinced that anything you lose to nature is not a right. It's a status. Neither life, nor reproductive power, are rights. Rights are things accorded by society, like the right to move freely from place to place, or the right to take someone to court for harming you, or the right to express your opinion. If these things are taken away from any individual, it is society's duty to restore them. Thus, you may have the right, depending upon your society, to reject the interference of another person as it may alter your status of "alive" or "capable of reproduction," but you do not automatically have the right to fertility, just because you are human.

So yes, forced sterilization would interfere with the right to be left in your original state, but reproduction itself really ought not be a right, as that would mean any and all persons incapable of reproduction would suddenly be considered disenfranchised.

I get the feeling pretty much any court in the US would give reproduction the status of "right," though.

PS: Fascism is not spelled with a second "i".
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
coolclay wrote:
their right to reproduce

Its a right now?


Are you really having this discussion?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
coolclay wrote:
their right to reproduce

Its a right now?


Are you really having this discussion?

Yes, I am. (Isn't it obvious?)
I'm all for the sterilization of humans, just there's no reason to only target the poor.
It could cure global warming far better than any other proposed plan, as well as easing off a large number of other environmental problems.
quex
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm all for the sterilization of humans, just there's no reason to only target the poor.
It could cure global warming far better than any other proposed plan, as well as easing off a large number of other environmental problems.


Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :D
ocalhoun
quex wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm all for the sterilization of humans, just there's no reason to only target the poor.
It could cure global warming far better than any other proposed plan, as well as easing off a large number of other environmental problems.


Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Very Happy

Wait... Shocked I have a newsletter? Eh?
lagoon
God, this guy is like some kind of bloody Nazi!

Did he just read up on a book about Hitler thinking it was today's papers and thought (like George Bush so frequently does) 'Hey, this seems like a great idea!'
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:

I'm all for the sterilization of humans, just there's no reason to only target the poor.
It could cure global warming far better than any other proposed plan, as well as easing off a large number of other environmental problems.


Well, I am against it. But in the case of your parents -- not only would I have made an exception, I would have performed the operation myself.

(joke)
Bikerman
Not funny....consider that the last unofficial warning.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
Not funny....consider that the last unofficial warning.


Wasn't that the first one?

Sorry, it really was a joke (ripped off an old SNL skit). I thought, since the guy seemed to be joking about committing genocide, he could take it.

Anyway, guess I will bail on the politics forum for a while.
Bikerman
My sense of humour is pretty good, but I draw the line at jokes/comments directed at a fellow poster which could well be considered offensive.
Ocalhoun's comment was obviously satirical and directed at no particular individual.
quex
ocalhoun wrote:
quex wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm all for the sterilization of humans, just there's no reason to only target the poor.
It could cure global warming far better than any other proposed plan, as well as easing off a large number of other environmental problems.


Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :D

Wait... :shock: I have a newsletter? :-s


It's a cliche:

Quote:
A reference to The Simpsons episode "Mountain of Madness" (4F10). Bart Simpson complained, "Sharing is a bunch of bull, too. And helping others. And what's all this crap I've been hearing about tolerance?" to which Homer Simpson replied, "Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."


XD
quex
Bikerman wrote:

Ocalhoun's comment was obviously satirical...


Aww, really? I would give it sincere consideration. Overpopulation is arguably the root of some great majority of the world's problems. I am already convinced that it is my civic duty as a responsible human to never reproduce. I also consider it a duty to adopt a child at such time that I am in a position to support one, both financially and emotionally.

Seriously.
Bikerman
quex wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Ocalhoun's comment was obviously satirical...


Aww, really? I would give it sincere consideration. Overpopulation is arguably the root of some great majority of the world's problems. I am already convinced that it is my civic duty as a responsible human to never reproduce. I also consider it a duty to adopt a child at such time that I am in a position to support one, both financially and emotionally.

Seriously.

Well, I have no problem with that. In fact I took the same decision 23 years ago and stuck to it. Smile
quex
Bikerman wrote:
quex wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Ocalhoun's comment was obviously satirical...


Aww, really? I would give it sincere consideration. Overpopulation is arguably the root of some great majority of the world's problems. I am already convinced that it is my civic duty as a responsible human to never reproduce. I also consider it a duty to adopt a child at such time that I am in a position to support one, both financially and emotionally.

Seriously.

Well, I have no problem with that. In fact I took the same decision 23 years ago and stuck to it. :-)


Bravo, and thanks. :)
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

Ocalhoun's comment was obviously satirical and directed at no particular individual.

My comment was not satirical.

Perhaps we're not ready for total sterilization yet; it would be nice if there was something to carry on the intelligence, but at least partial sterilization would be great; that would bring the world's population down to manageable levels without the unpleasantries of war, famine, disease, or genocide.
quex
ocalhoun wrote:

Perhaps we're not ready for total sterilization yet; it would be nice if there was something to carry on the intelligence, but at least partial sterilization would be great; that would bring the world's population down to manageable levels without the unpleasantries of war, famine, disease, or genocide.


Agreed. However, would you support monetary subsidies as an incentive to opt into sterilization? A free surgery program would be critical, of course, to make voluntary sterilization available to all social classes, but once we begin to add incentives, do you feel that the neutrality of the decision would be compromised? I am concerned about this. Because low-income social classes would be far more motivated by a monetary reward, the type of subsidy made available to those who choose sterilization might be used as a tool to select only that social class. Consider what would happen if other rewards were available: expedited citizenship status for immigrants, perhaps, or refugee status for foreign nationals in times of war....
mikakiev
Some people just prefer to live on a street having governmental support.In the UK some homeless people are proud that they follow their fathers and they love such a life indeed.Sure they do not want to have any castration or vasectomy.Furthermore,who is gonna pay the money for the testicle cancer that increases after vasectomy?
Bikerman
mikakiev wrote:
Some people just prefer to live on a street having governmental support.I the UK some homeless people are proud that they follow their fathers and they love such a life indeed.Sure they do not want to have any castration or vasectomy.Furthermore,who is gonna pay the money for the testicle cancer that increase after vasectomy?
Really? Well that's odd because I did quite a bit of volunteer work with homeless people at one time and guess what? I never met one single homeless person who wanted to be homeless. Not a single one, ever. I met plenty who couldn't go home because they were abused or thrown out. I met a good number who had mental problems and I met a large number who had drink/drugs problems but not a single one who would have chosen the life had they a choice.
liljp617
mikakiev wrote:
Some people just prefer to live on a street having governmental support.I the UK some homeless people are proud that they follow their fathers and they love such a life indeed.Sure they do not want to have any castration or vasectomy.Furthermore,who is gonna pay the money for the testicle cancer that increase after vasectomy?


Nobody is proud to have absolutely nothing. Nobody is proud to go weeks without a warm shower. Nobody is proud to go to bed hungry. Nobody is proud to know they don't know where their next meal will be. Nobody is proud that the only thing they can think of is how to get their next fix. Nobody is proud to sleep on a sidewalk. Nobody is proud to follow in their homeless father's footsteps and themselves become homeless. Find me a person who CHOSE to be homeless.

May I ask where you got this idea?
ocalhoun
quex wrote:
low-income social classes would be far more motivated by a monetary reward,

Well, a non-monetary reward then... If a suitable one could be thought of. Trouble is, even most of those could still be bought for money, so the rich might decide to just buy their rewards instead of earning them, especially if the poor find a way to sell their rewards.

Perhaps if we could develop a way for people to up link and upload their minds to computers, and thus gain virtual immortality, this privilege could be exchanged for not having any children.

Something like that just might work.
miacps
ocalhoun wrote:
quex wrote:
low-income social classes would be far more motivated by a monetary reward,

Well, a non-monetary reward then... If a suitable one could be thought of. Trouble is, even most of those could still be bought for money, so the rich might decide to just buy their rewards instead of earning them, especially if the poor find a way to sell their rewards.

Perhaps if we could develop a way for people to up link and upload their minds to computers, and thus gain virtual immortality, this privilege could be exchanged for not having any children.

Something like that just might work.


How about a brand new genetically improved 20-ish year old body cloned from yourself? They'll just plop your old brain into your new body, perhaps inject it with some sort of brain cell growth stimulator first to bring you back up to speed, and you're good to go!

I'd seriously consider an offer like that if I can cash it in when I make it to 65-70 years old.
ocalhoun
miacps wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
quex wrote:
low-income social classes would be far more motivated by a monetary reward,

Well, a non-monetary reward then... If a suitable one could be thought of. Trouble is, even most of those could still be bought for money, so the rich might decide to just buy their rewards instead of earning them, especially if the poor find a way to sell their rewards.

Perhaps if we could develop a way for people to up link and upload their minds to computers, and thus gain virtual immortality, this privilege could be exchanged for not having any children.

Something like that just might work.


How about a brand new genetically improved 20-ish year old body cloned from yourself? They'll just plop your old brain into your new body, perhaps inject it with some sort of brain cell growth stimulator first to bring you back up to speed, and you're good to go!

I'd seriously consider an offer like that if I can cash it in when I make it to 65-70 years old.

Now you're thinking! That's probably a better idea than mine.
furtasacra
It is my personal opinion that a person without the financial means to raise a child and send them to college should not have children.

That's one reason I don't have any, myself.
mikakiev
liljp617 wrote:
mikakiev wrote:
Some people just prefer to live on a street having governmental support.I the UK some homeless people are proud that they follow their fathers and they love such a life indeed.Sure they do not want to have any castration or vasectomy.Furthermore,who is gonna pay the money for the testicle cancer that increase after vasectomy?


Nobody is proud to have absolutely nothing. Nobody is proud to go weeks without a warm shower. Nobody is proud to go to bed hungry. Nobody is proud to know they don't know where their next meal will be. Nobody is proud that the only thing they can think of is how to get their next fix. Nobody is proud to sleep on a sidewalk. Nobody is proud to follow in their homeless father's footsteps and themselves become homeless. Find me a person who CHOSE to be homeless.

May I ask where you got this idea?

In Cardiff Social service wanted one 40 y.o. to be moved to the Newport's asylum.He refused because Cardiff is his town he lived and he proudly was giving an interview that city council provides him coffee and a roll every morning.So he is quite happy to be on the street of Cardiff rather then in the asylum in Newport.It was on Wales TV.
mikakiev
Bikerman wrote:
mikakiev wrote:
Some people just prefer to live on a street having governmental support.I the UK some homeless people are proud that they follow their fathers and they love such a life indeed.Sure they do not want to have any castration or vasectomy.Furthermore,who is gonna pay the money for the testicle cancer that increase after vasectomy?
Really? Well that's odd because I did quite a bit of volunteer work with homeless people at one time and guess what? I never met one single homeless person who wanted to be homeless. Not a single one, ever. I met plenty who couldn't go home because they were abused or thrown out. I met a good number who had mental problems and I met a large number who had drink/drugs problems but not a single one who would have chosen the life had they a choice.


Were you given them food on the street in the city centre and tried to explain that having a proper work and renting a room is better than selling Big Issue and sleeping on the street?There was the time when I could afford only to bye evening bread from Tesco(you know what I mean,the price is half cut after 10 pm).I was quite surprised when one homeless wanted a quid from me to buy a chicken roll in Greggs.I wasnt buying in Greggs myself. Very Happy
liljp617
mikakiev wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
mikakiev wrote:
Some people just prefer to live on a street having governmental support.I the UK some homeless people are proud that they follow their fathers and they love such a life indeed.Sure they do not want to have any castration or vasectomy.Furthermore,who is gonna pay the money for the testicle cancer that increase after vasectomy?


Nobody is proud to have absolutely nothing. Nobody is proud to go weeks without a warm shower. Nobody is proud to go to bed hungry. Nobody is proud to know they don't know where their next meal will be. Nobody is proud that the only thing they can think of is how to get their next fix. Nobody is proud to sleep on a sidewalk. Nobody is proud to follow in their homeless father's footsteps and themselves become homeless. Find me a person who CHOSE to be homeless.

May I ask where you got this idea?

In Cardiff Social service wanted one 40 y.o. to be moved to the Newport's asylum.He refused because Cardiff is his town he lived and he proudly was giving an interview that city council provides him coffee and a roll every morning.So he is quite happy to be on the street of Cardiff rather then in the asylum in Newport.It was on Wales TV.


That's not what you proposed.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Perhaps we're not ready for total sterilization yet; it would be nice if there was something to carry on the intelligence, but at least partial sterilization would be great; that would bring the world's population down to manageable levels without the unpleasantries of war, famine, disease, or genocide.


I also feel very strongly about overpopulation and it being one of the key factors that need to be addressed in global warming, and environmental destruction of the world. Regrettably there are so many cultural and religious considerations and I cannot see sterilization as a viable method. Decisions would have to be made who to sterilize and it just feels like such a huge invasion of fundamental rights with enormous ethical issues. What I have noticed however is that the growth of population is slower in those communities which are well educated. So perhaps the answer does lie in education for everyone on a more accelerated scale. Perhaps the world needs to do more for educating everyone, especially the poor and disadvantaged. Maybe we can do more to help educate others, either through contributions, or actively participate in voluntary organizations.
furtasacra
I don't think sterilization is the answer to overpopulation, but I wouldn't mind having it being easily affordable for people who don't want kids, or already have as many as they can stand.

Furthermore, I don't think reproducing is a right; children are either a luxury or a burden, depending on your financial status. Besides, what would happen if reproduction WAS a right?

What about some 350 pound hairy-backed borderline moron sitting sweaty and shirtless in front of a dusty TV in his mother's basement at age 41, not caring that some of his chili cheese fries are getting lost in the folds of his belly fat, feeling sorry for himself because there isn't a single woman on the planet willing to have sex with him and the stinking boils on his huge flabby ass?

Does THAT guy have a right to reproduce? And if he does, how is he going to accomplish it, short of government-sanctioned rape?

Think about it, people.
deanhills
furtasacra wrote:
I don't think sterilization is the answer to overpopulation, but I wouldn't mind having it being easily affordable for people who don't want kids, or already have as many as they can stand.

Furthermore, I don't think reproducing is a right; children are either a luxury or a burden, depending on your financial status. Besides, what would happen if reproduction WAS a right?

What about some 350 pound hairy-backed borderline moron sitting sweaty and shirtless in front of a dusty TV in his mother's basement at age 41, not caring that some of his chili cheese fries are getting lost in the folds of his belly fat, feeling sorry for himself because there isn't a single woman on the planet willing to have sex with him and the stinking boils on his huge flabby ass?

Does THAT guy have a right to reproduce? And if he does, how is he going to accomplish it, short of government-sanctioned rape?

Think about it, people.


You are obviously highly educated Furtasacra. And the idea of making sterilization more affordable is obviously an excellent one. As far as other people's "rights to have children" are concerned, I think that would be a very difficult issue to judge. Who would decide who should be sterilized or not? And what standards would be employed? And yes, in my opinion, THAT guy does have the right to reproduce if he so chooses. And if he does, lets hope that the systems that we live in can educate his children to make better decisions regarding their health, and their environment in their lives. The kind of wise decisions you have taken.
mikakiev
[Who would decide who should be sterilized or not?
In the country of democracy it can be sorted out through the voting Idea
Bikerman
mikakiev wrote:
[Who would decide who should be sterilized or not?
In the country of democracy it can be sorted out through the voting Idea

That is what we commonly call the tyranny of the majority. Not a good idea at all....
handfleisch
lagoon wrote:
God, this guy is like some kind of bloody Nazi!

Did he just read up on a book about Hitler thinking it was today's papers and thought (like George Bush so frequently does) 'Hey, this seems like a great idea!'


A few facts for y'all: Hitler was inspired by sterilization and the eugenics movement going on in the US (and the Nazis implemented it in an even worse way). In the USA, poor people, African Americans and Native Americans were sterilized in the USA in the 1930's and after, I believe all the way up to the 1970's in the last documented cases, when the medical techniques were first developed and Eugenics was popular. So it's not a big surprise that some politician in Louisiana comes up with the proposal again.

Forced sterilization has been happening around the world even into this century (against Gypsies in the Central Europe for example).

Forced sterilization has always been by done those in power onto the powerless. It's not a joke, folks.

For more info Dark Chapter of American History: U.S. Court Battle Over Forced Sterilization
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm
handfleisch
furtasacra wrote:
I don't think sterilization is the answer to overpopulation, but I wouldn't mind having it being easily affordable for people who don't want kids, or already have as many as they can stand.

Furthermore, I don't think reproducing is a right; children are either a luxury or a burden, depending on your financial status. Besides, what would happen if reproduction WAS a right?

What about some 350 pound hairy-backed borderline moron sitting sweaty and shirtless in front of a dusty TV in his mother's basement at age 41, not caring that some of his chili cheese fries are getting lost in the folds of his belly fat, feeling sorry for himself because there isn't a single woman on the planet willing to have sex with him and the stinking boils on his huge flabby ass?

Does THAT guy have a right to reproduce? And if he does, how is he going to accomplish it, short of government-sanctioned rape?

Think about it, people.


Think about THIS: This whole discussion -- who should be sterilized, who should decide, who should not be allowed to have children, how to go about it, incentives, force, etc -- is the same discussion the German power structure had with the eugenics movement in the 1930's that led to designating certain groups of people inferior, unworthy to breed or even to live, and eventually to full fledged genocide.
lagoon
Did anybody watch Louis Theroux's documentary last night about Philadelphia's crime, and how druggies live on the street? This one poor woman was spending hundreds of dollars everyday just to get her heroin. She didn't want to be there. She just couldn't escape.
miacps
How does someone living on the street manage to spend hundreds dollars every day? Confused

Anyway, I don't understand what this has to do with the topic.. Question
ParsaAkbari
quex wrote:

Would you support a plan like this in your own country? What if the words "poor" and "wealthy" were replaced with "mentally handicapped" and "mentally gifted"? In either case, it sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me.

Read the article here.


There is NO such thing as mentally handicapped or mentally gifted. Its about how hard we work. Yes your IQ's max amount may be affected slightly by genetics, but i disagree with any article which says your school grades are affected. They are up to you memorizing things and working hard.

If the poor people dont want to work hard then why should we have to pay for them?
Unless they have some kind of disablilty then its only moral.
liljp617
ParsaAkbari wrote:
quex wrote:

Would you support a plan like this in your own country? What if the words "poor" and "wealthy" were replaced with "mentally handicapped" and "mentally gifted"? In either case, it sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me.

Read the article here.


There is NO such thing as mentally handicapped or mentally gifted. Its about how hard we work. Yes your IQ's max amount may be affected slightly by genetics, but i disagree with any article which says your school grades are affected. They are up to you memorizing things and working hard.

If the poor people dont want to work hard then why should we have to pay for them?
Unless they have some kind of disablilty then its only moral.


........what?

If you don't want to help specifically the poor people (help doesn't mean just throw money at them) who choose not to work hard when they could, that's a fair, valid stance (although I don't think it takes us in a positive direction).

But if you're basing that stance on the incredibly silly notion that there is no such thing as mentally handicapped (or mentally "gifted"), your stance is beyond baseless and just plain ignorant.

Furthermore, if you're basing your stance on the idea that all poor people wake up daily and choose to be poor/not work, you're even more ignorant of the situation.
Bikerman
ParsaAkbari wrote:
quex wrote:

Would you support a plan like this in your own country? What if the words "poor" and "wealthy" were replaced with "mentally handicapped" and "mentally gifted"? In either case, it sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me.

Read the article here.


There is NO such thing as mentally handicapped or mentally gifted. Its about how hard we work. Yes your IQ's max amount may be affected slightly by genetics, but i disagree with any article which says your school grades are affected. They are up to you memorizing things and working hard.
Err....I think you are talking complete and utter bollox. In fact, I don't THINK it, I KNOW it. As someone who worked in both education and Special Needs education I find your nonsense quite offensive and I suggest you think before posting.
OpposableThumbs
handfleisch wrote:
The only people who should be sterilized are politicians who suggest such a thing...

Dang. I wanted to say this first. Free tubal ligations for the entire Louisiana politician's family!
Related topics
Watching Taj Mahal at Night : poor response read more ......
Poor sports bring down gaming
should poor people receive immunity for stealing goods?
Poor Real Madrid
The poor children................Look at yourself!!!!
Poor Richard's Almanac
I am broke
Loan for the poor - Mohammad Yunus
Games and Forums UPDATED
Singapore - Increase Good Service Tax to help the poor
Poor Charlie Brown
No job & broke....
What pets do you have?
Good job, poor job, good country, poor country
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.