Should society consider mandatory sterilization?

As others have stated hitler and the USA tried it to varying extents and the rest of the world didn't seem to like it.

However if you remove emotions and personal feelings it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money.

Saying that I don't agree with eugenics or killing of the weak. I Like having my grandma around and without expensive treatment she wouldn't be.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I know. That is just one of the many reasons that I could never agree to something like this, and would give my life, and take others too, to prevent it from ever coming to pass.

Not in my name, and not on my watch.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Why are you assuming none of these people are sympathizers or outright members of the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups? All of those groups are completely legal in many Western countries, including the US.

Basically because I don't think it is at all helpful to assume that someone holds views that they have not espoused, based on other views that are not directly related.
For example if someone said, "I think gay marriage is a fantastic idea."
It would be intellectually dishonest of me to assume they hold that view because they are Homosexual.
Hopefully that makes sense.

True story. John Holdren who was Obama's natural choice for Science czar once argued for putting drugs or chemicals in the food distribution nodes and water reservoirs to control population. This ghoulish bastige is just one creepy slime who should never have been allowed near the reigns of power where he might be able to actually do what he advocated for. "oh you cons! It was just an academic discussion" (like when Obama advocated killing live born babies that survived abortions was an "academic discussion" or his ways to get around the 2A was an "academic discussion." ) Yeah right.

No... I don't have the words.

On the bright side, I now know who's opinions on anything I read in the future will hold no weight whatsoever.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: crazyewok
I think people are muddling up the terms sterlization and Extermination....

Because one can beget another. If you decide to sterilize all of one group of people for being "undesirable", that becomes extermination via genocide. Its the whole Nazi thing.

In any event....freedom. Thats the answer here.

No it doesnt.

A sterilized person can live a long and happy life. One does not need to be exterminated to be sterilized. And
Sterilization need not be permenent either.

No one has to die.

So no its not the NAZI thing.


And how is freedom the answer ? How does that solve the looming over population problem? All you doing is repeating a buzz word.

And I agree with Freedom as long as it doesnt interfer with my freedom and a overpopulated world full of war, famine and pandemics to me interfers with my freedom.

I dont like the idea of Sterilisation, I hate it. But the other options are far less desirable.

So its ok to interfer with OTHERS freedom, and FORCE sterilization, to preserve YOUR freedom?

what do you think will happen if you try to force people to be sterilized? Try that # on me, and I will kill you! How would that interfear with your freedom?

Force this on people, and you will get war, famine and pandemics - or are people that stupid, they wont fight back??

Calm down.

I am not going to force anything on anyone.

This is just a discussion and one that needs looking at as overpopulation is a problem.


If humans were not so selfish and only had small family and breed only when they the jobs to suuport there family we would not even be haveing this discussion.

Dont worry my friend, this is just a discussion, iam not angry or anything

But what we are talking about here, is forced steralization. And that would not work, cause me and others, would fight it, thats what iam saying

If humans were not so selfish, and demanded that everybody should have a job to support them self, and instead stopped forced people to behave a certain way, we wouldnt have this discussion

What we really need to learn, is that people wont follow a rule, just because someone wrote it down on paper, and called it a law

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
As others have stated hitler and the USA tried it to varying extents and the rest of the world didn't seem to like it.

However if you remove emotions and personal feelings it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money.

Saying that I don't agree with eugenics or killing of the weak. I Like having my grandma around and without expensive treatment she wouldn't be.

Exactly and this is something many here at ATS CAN NOT do. They allow their emotions to control their tongues and not logical thought.

No one here is saying to kill anyone and attempting to compare it to short term studies in certain areas instead of global wide targeting families with genes inherited diseases is like comparing apples with oranges. Sometimes making the right decision can be the hardest.

I bet most here who have contributed to this thread have no idea of the medical advancements made by Nazi scientists prior and during WW II and no one talks about that do they? The evil that these doctors did is repulsive BUT science took those notes to advance their studies because what these NAZI's did. I am totally against what the NAZI did but science took those studies and were able to make advancements in the field of medicine. I am not going to derail this thread by discussing this...... research it yourself.

MLK also was advanced by the NAZI and our US government is grateful for this as well.

Hail CIA, NSA, FBI, MI5, Mossad, and many others

And where did many of those evil NAZI's end up at the end of the war? In the UK, USA and Russia.

originally posted by: crazyewok



If humans were not so selfish and only had small family and breed only when they the jobs to suuport there family we would not even be haveing this discussion.

Ewok, first its important that I am clear that I am not putting words in your mouth. Nor am I chasing you through this thread. At least, not on purpose. But the above sentence is a perfect highlight for why eugenics cannot be allowed.

Typically, the "breeders" are minorities. At least, in the eyes of the white, christian of european descent in recent history. While the above sentence i quoted makes sense in a sterile logic environment...the way its is practically applied sounds an awful lot like how genocides start.

Again, not your words....just extrapolating on something you said.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
As others have stated hitler and the USA tried it to varying extents and the rest of the world didn't seem to like it.

However if you remove emotions and personal feelings it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money.

Saying that I don't agree with eugenics or killing of the weak. I Like having my grandma around and without expensive treatment she wouldn't be.

The sick part is not that we DONT remove the sick and the weak, the sick part is that we force everyone to pay for them!!

If we do have to be forced to pay taxes, why dont let people decide for themself, what they pay for?? If people think politicians need salary, they can donate there tax to them, if people would rather pay for schools and busses, let them pay for them, and if they prefere, let them pay for the weak and the sick

But no, we force people to live a certain way, we even pay for it, and most of the people we insist on paying so much money on, wouldnt even need the help, if it wasnt forced on them. People need to take responsibilities for their own life, give people the choise, to make the society they want.

While there are logical arguments I can create as to why eugenics and mandatory sterilization is ultimately abhorrent, I think the deciding factor as to why I would never support it is quite simple. You see, I had a dream (literally). In it, I had a daughter. A beautiful little girl in a white dress. Interacting with her was utter bliss. In that odd dreamlike state, I just loved her oh so much.

I don't think I should deny someone that chance, to have a child of their own.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
As others have stated hitler and the USA tried it to varying extents and the rest of the world didn't seem to like it.

However if you remove emotions and personal feelings it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money.

Saying that I don't agree with eugenics or killing of the weak. I Like having my grandma around and without expensive treatment she wouldn't be.

LOL If we remove emotions and personal feelings? You realize that people with no empathy are considered mentally ill, right? That's one of the ways to describe the word "psychopath".

Psychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. The psychopath can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack conscience and empathy, making them manipulative, volatile and often (but by no means always) criminal.

What is Psychopathy?

So basically, your 2nd paragraph reads like this: "However if you think like a psychopath it makes absolute sense. Remove the sick and the weak. Serious illnesses that would kill without medication cost society a lot of money."

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I know. That is just one of the many reasons that I could never agree to something like this, and would give my life, and take others too, to prevent it from ever coming to pass.

Not in my name, and not on my watch.

I agree. Some of the most honorable & kindest people I've met have been poor. There's no way I'd sit back & let these sickos do this crap.

originally posted by: Punisher75
originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Why are you assuming none of these people are sympathizers or outright members of the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups? All of those groups are completely legal in many Western countries, including the US.

Basically because I don't think it is at all helpful to assume that someone holds views that they have not espoused, based on other views that are not directly related.
For example if someone said, "I think gay marriage is a fantastic idea."
It would be intellectually dishonest of me to assume they hold that view because they are Homosexual.
Hopefully that makes sense.

If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, and encourages or agrees with mandatory sterilizations, I mean encourages the other animals to accept the mindset of ducks, I'm probably going to assume it's a duck or a duck sympathizer. Especially when others show that this exact program was already promoted by those groups, err, "ducks", yet the "ducks" continue to double down on the idea.

Anyone can make a mistake in reasoning. That's part of the fun in brainstorming. But doubling down on that mistake in reasoning means they don't consider it a mistake. If we were talking about raising taxes or something like that, I can understand. But we're talking about forcing poor people, "dumb people", and people who've broken laws to never be able to have families or offspring. Using the "criminal" argument that some have suggested, wouldn't that make put most Westerners on the list? Breaking copyright laws & using illegal drugs are still crimes. So are all of those people on the list too?

ridiculous. we do not have to pay for people's health care. That was a road we went down by some of the liberal political poop heads over the objections of more sensible people. So because libs elected for free healthcare now they wanna justify killing people so they don't have to pay for it.

further more notorious eugenicist like Margaret Saenger advocated sterilization for minorities mental defectives and other "undesireables." That was on blacks and others by a lily white bitch of an elitist. Today is no different. 75 percent of pregnancies of black women end in that lib institution known as abortion. yeah, that's just a coincidence. not a deliberate outcome. right?

How about this? we don't give people "free" health care and subsequently try to play God about what a free people can do and who lives and dies.

You can make a cold and rational argument for eugenics. However, people are not cold and rational. At least those of us without mental problems.

The real problem is that we start down a slippery slope. First it is retards. Then it is fat people. Then it is poor people. Then it is ugly people. Then it is conservatives. Then it is liberals. You can always make a case for why somebody should not be allowed to have kids.

Of course, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and racist which is why liberal Democrats trip all over themselves to support Planned Parenthood.

enlightenedservant

If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, and encourages or agrees with mandatory sterilizations, I mean encourages the other animals to accept the mindset of ducks, I'm probably going to assume it's a duck or a duck sympathizer. Especially when others show that this exact program was already promoted by those groups, err, "ducks", yet the "ducks" continue to double down on the idea.

It is still intellectually dishonest in my opinion. I mean using the Gay marriage example again, is it safe to assume that those in favor of gay marriage are in fact homosexual?
Of course not.
I would rather deal with the arguments and ideas they actually present, rather than the ideas or arguments I want them to present to make my case easier.
We do this to avoid the Strawman argument.

Anyone can make a mistake in reasoning. That's part of the fun in brainstorming. But doubling down on that mistake in reasoning means they don't consider it a mistake. If we were talking about raising taxes or something like that, I can understand. But we're talking about forcing poor people, "dumb people", and people who've broken laws to never be able to have families or offspring. Using the "criminal" argument that some have suggested, wouldn't that make put most Westerners on the list? Breaking copyright laws & using illegal drugs are still crimes. So are all of those people on the list too?

I agree the idea of eugenics is reprehensible however I would still rather deal with the argument itself than something that has not been claimed.
The severity of the consequences of their argument should it be employed does not necessitate the need nor is it preferable to resort to logical fallacies when interacting with those ideas. I think it is fair to articulate why the idea is abhorrent however to assign arguments to them that they have not made is lying.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: crazyewok



If humans were not so selfish and only had small family and breed only when they the jobs to suuport there family we would not even be haveing this discussion.

Ewok, first its important that I am clear that I am not putting words in your mouth. Nor am I chasing you through this thread. At least, not on purpose. But the above sentence is a perfect highlight for why eugenics cannot be allowed.

Typically, the "breeders" are minorities. At least, in the eyes of the white, christian of european descent in recent history. While the above sentence i quoted makes sense in a sterile logic environment...the way its is practically applied sounds an awful lot like how genocides start.

Again, not your words....just extrapolating on something you said.

Well I am not talking about race.

The decision in my opinion would be from a purely economic stand point. You can have kids only when you can afford to support them. Black, white or Asian. If the majority of Welfare queens happen to be of a minority? Well *shrugs* it is what it is.

To be honest I would go by a policy of Sterilization while on Welfare. You go on welfare the ability to have kids is removed while on it plus 2 years. Once off welfare the infertility is removed.

No one is forced that way as one can refuse to go on welfare.

a reply to: enlightenedservant
An additional thought. If I am not mistaken Crazywok is much more left of center than I am . I am pretty hard right libertarian, who is also a Christian.
As someone who is a hard right Christian libertarian I am often times compared to and accused of being a Nazi.
None of it is true but because of my stance on my faith, and my political and moral values I am seen as a "bad guy" by many. I have arguments assigned to me that I did not and have not made, based solely on these views.
Its unfair when it is done to me so I can only assume it would be wrong to use that tactic to someone who is left of me politically.

a reply to: Punisher75

Na Im normaly pretty right of center.

To be fair I piss off both lefties and righties as all over the place.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah, i know you're not talking about race. I wanted to make sure i was clear that I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

It highlights the problem (as mentioned): you propose it to be this way, but it never works out this way. It works out that other way.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah, i know you're not talking about race. I wanted to make sure i was clear that I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

It highlights the problem (as mentioned): you propose it to be this way, but it never works out this way. It works out that other way.

I guess that is the fudemental flaw is that human nature will take it to far.

It still leaves us though with the huge issue of overpopulation.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think there are "fail safes" built into humanity (and every other creature). Homosexuality has been shown to be heavily influenced by epigenetics, which are a response to environment.

Not to mention illness. We are ready for another mass illness....just need a resistant strain to come forward and do what it does: thin the herd.