Support NeoGAF

[Sutton Dagger]

Holy shit at some of the other experiments conducted in the US as well.

In 1874, Mary Rafferty, an Irish servant woman, came to Dr. Roberts Bartholow of the Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati for treatment of her cancer. Seeing a research opportunity, he cut open her head, and inserted needle electrodes into her exposed brain matter.[4] He described the experiment as follows:

When the needle entered the brain substance, she complained of acute pain in the neck. In order to develop more decided reactions, the strength of the current was increased ... her countenance exhibited great distress, and she began to cry. Very soon, the left hand was extended as if in the act of taking hold of some object in front of her; the arm presently was agitated with clonic spasm; her eyes became fixed, with pupils widely dilated; lips were blue, and she frothed at the mouth; her breathing became stertorous; she lost consciousness and was violently convulsed on the left side. The convulsion lasted five minutes, and was succeeded by a coma. She returned to consciousness in twenty minutes from the beginning of the attack, and complained of some weakness and vertigo.
—Dr. Bartholow's research report[4]

 

[FutureZombie]

I am not saying we should sterilize everyone who has a kid when they're too young. However, I bet that would decrease crime by a large amount over time. If you've read Freakonomics, you know abortion is one of many very plausible causes of the decreasing rates of crime.

What I do truly think, is that violent criminals should be sterilized.

Now, obviously this is impractical because people freak out over eugenics because it is associated with Nazism and racism. But people need to grow up, calm down, and consider eugenics without resorting to hysterics.

Just because it has been done (mostly) incorrectly in the past, does not mean it is not potentially useful and YES- humane.

 

[gwarm01]

Yes, how old are you?

I'm 26 and this is the first I've ever heard of forced sterilizations in the states, although I freely admit to having never researched the topic before.

 

[Plywood]

Our education system pisses me off sometimes.

How come I was never told this in history class?

Goddamn the more I educate myself the more I realize that America has been and may possibly currently be more evil than most countries in the world right now.

I remember reading about this in a high school history book, I can't recall if the teacher actually went over it or if I stumbled upon the pages myself, but I definitely remember reading about it. Definitely shocking and fucked up, the US is not exactly the cleanest country in its short history.

 

[Devolution]

I am not saying we should sterilize everyone who has a kid when they're too young. However, I bet that would decrease crime by a large amount over time. If you've read Freakonomics, you know abortion is one of many very plausible causes of the decreasing rates of crime.

What I do truly think, is that violent criminals should be sterilized.

Now, obviously this is impractical because people freak out over eugenics because it is associated with Nazism and racism. But people need to grow up, calm down, and consider eugenics without resorting to hysterics.

Just because it has been done (mostly) incorrectly in the past, does not mean it is not potentially useful and YES- humane.

Your first inclination is to just call for the forced sterilization of people before better education, better living standards and universal/cheap/free access to birth control options.

Your priorities are fucked.

 

[CornBurrito]

What I do truly think, is that violent criminals should be sterilized.

And what do you do when people are falsely convicted of a crime, and then are later proven innocent? The crime they were falsely accused of was violent in nature, so you sterilize them.


What do you do when you need to reverse an irreversible decision? This is exactly why I don't support the death penalty.

Also what do you do when that violent criminal turns his life around, and becomes a well adjusted member of society?

And can you answer my question instead of ignoring it?

If you wrongly jail someone you can get them out of jail. If you wrongly sterilize someone... what then?

You said that jail is just as much a violation of someone's rights as sterilization. You are wrong.

 

[WedgeX]

Also, learning about eugenics in high school and college really turned me off of criminology as it relates to labeling and genetic predispositions of actions.

We are not even close to figuring out if actions are biological, environmental or social or some percentage that might not even be the same for each individual and to presuppose that we can guess at it, claim its science or try and throw out a few "examples" for justification is sickening.

 

[FutureZombie]

Also, I am not saying that it is a guarantee that the child of a violent criminal will be a criminal himself. I'm saying that the odds are stacked against him.

1) He won't have a father.

2) His mother has terrible judgement and probably a history of abuse if she thinks daddy was a good man to sleep with.

 

[Devolution]

And what do you do when people are falsely convicted of a crime, and then are later proven innocent? The crime they were falsely accused of was violent in nature, so you sterilize them.


What do you do when you need to reverse an irreversible decision? This is exactly why I don't support the death penalty.

Also what do you do when that violent criminal turns his life around, and becomes a well adjusted member of society?

Also never mind that a bunch of sociopaths/psycopaths/serial killers have had law abiding parents that abused them.

 

[Mango Positive]

This is a Gattaca style weird one...

Yes... by carefully guiding reproduction based on genetic dispositions and positive societal traits, the world would definitely be a better place for those lucky enough to be born. I simply wouldn't want to live in that world though. If we did everything we should to make sure humanity progressed to its fullest potential, most of us common folk would have to die. Utopia can only be built by monsters.

 

[Jin34]

I will, then. Thanks for the tip. :-(

Oh, and look what I found, GAF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaH0Ws8RtSc


I wouldn't teach this in American schools either. Wowsers.


Ohio

Well that's what happens when you leave education up to each state, then again having national education policy in the hands of repubs when they have majorities would scare the shit out of me.

 

[Vestal]

I am not saying we should sterilize everyone who has a kid when they're too young. However, I bet that would decrease crime by a large amount over time. If you've read Freakonomics, you know abortion is one of many very plausible causes of the decreasing rates of crime.

What I do truly think, is that violent criminals should be sterilized.

Now, obviously this is impractical because people freak out over eugenics because it is associated with Nazism and racism. But people need to grow up, calm down, and consider eugenics without resorting to hysterics.

Just because it has been done (mostly) incorrectly in the past, does not mean it is not potentially useful and YES- humane.

No it is not because its related to Nazi.. Its because you are actually going in and surgically altering a persons body, that's whats FUCKED UP.

 

[FutureZombie]

And what do you do when people are falsely convicted of a crime, and then are later proven innocent? The crime they were falsely accused of was violent in nature, so you sterilize them.


What do you do when you need to reverse an irreversible decision? This is exactly why I don't support the death penalty.

Also what do you do when that violent criminal turns his life around, and becomes a well adjusted member of society?

I'm not saying it's a prefect system. There is no greater tragedy than when someone who was put to death is later proven innocent. It's a complicated issue, but I think we would be better off sterilizing some people.

 

[Devolution]

Also, I am not saying that it is a guarantee that the child of a violent criminal will be a criminal himself. I'm saying that the odds are stacked against him.

1) He won't have a father.

2) His mother has terrible judgement and probably a history of abuse if she thinks daddy was a good man to sleep with.

Okay let's start up a eugenics program. Your judgment and logic is pretty shitty, let's start with you.

 

[Yaboosh]

I'm not saying it's a prefect system. There is no greater tragedy than when someone who was put to death is later proven innocent. It's a complicated issue, but I think we would be better off sterilizing some people.

I have the first candidate in mind...

 

[FutureZombie]

Also never mind that a bunch of sociopaths/psycopaths/serial killers have had law abiding parents that abused them.

Abusing your child puts you on the list of people we're discussing for sterilization.

 

[Vestal]

I'm not saying it's a prefect system. There is no greater tragedy than when someone who was put to death is later proven innocent. It's a complicated issue, but I think we would be better off sterilizing some people.

You must be trolling.. No one in their right mind would actually suggest this sort of thing with such little sensibility.

 

[Coins]

And what do you do when people are falsely convicted of a crime, and then are later proven innocent? The crime they were falsely accused of was violent in nature, so you sterilize them.


What do you do when you need to reverse an irreversible decision? This is exactly why I don't support the death penalty.

Also what do you do when that violent criminal turns his life around, and becomes a well adjusted member of society?

In Couey's case he was caught masturbating in a kids face, then he confessed to murdering a child later on in life. He gave details only he would know to people. There was no mistaking his innocence.

A sexual predator cannot become a well adjusted member of society. There is something physically wrong with them. A bank robber makes a choice, a sexual predator acts on instinct.

 

[Aquavelvaman]

What the fuck man

 

[FutureZombie]

Okay let's start up a eugenics program. Your judgment and logic is pretty shitty, let's start with you.

This is why we can't discuss these things. People don't like to consider difficult topics so they resort to name calling. Grow up.

 

[Devolution]

Abusing your child puts you on the list of people we're discussing for sterilization.

The damage is done, you're missing my point by a wide margin. There are so many factors you refuse to acknowledge that would make any sterilization program woefully inadequate, nevermind the ethical fucking quandary.

Who gets to decide these things? What makes them objective? What's the basis for it? What is the benchmark? You try to justify it with "well these violent criminals." So they're nothing but lab rats to you?

This is why we can't discuss these things. People don't like to consider difficult topics so they resort to name calling. Grow up.

The one who needs to do the growing up is you, who thinks that forced sterilization is some answer to a problem. Are you some objective omnipotent being? Do you know anyone who is? Then a program such as this is doomed to failure. The OP proves that we are too imperfect to carry out such tasks.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What do you do when you need to reverse an irreversible decision? This is exactly why I don't support the death penalty.

Also what do you do when that violent criminal turns his life around, and becomes a well adjusted member of society?

What about this guy?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=433990

That said I don't support sterilization for criminals or for young parents. My concern is more for people who keep having kids (similar to the cited article) and with no means to support them. That said you can deal with it other than sterilization, like a ceiling on how much you can get in benefits, but then you get called out for being cruel to the child, if you say fine we'll give you the extra money but you have to have your tubes tied (and same with the husband), but we won't force you, you get called out for forcing people to be sterilized. It's a Catch-22. At the same time how do you set limits or standards? Is it something vague (number varies by area) or is it something locked down (which can be just as unfair).

 

[The Technomancer]

This is why we can't discuss these things. People don't like to consider difficult topics so they resort to name calling. Grow up.

Dude, we can have reasonable discussions on the subject. We cannot have them in a thread that is explicitly and inarguably about such a system being horrifically abused in the past.

Unless you are actually saying that sterilizing a 14 year old girl for misbehaving at school is acceptable.

 

[Coins]

Also never mind that a bunch of sociopaths/psycopaths/serial killers have had law abiding parents that abused them.

How were they law abiding if they were abusing children?

 

[CornBurrito]

Also, I am not saying that it is a guarantee that the child of a violent criminal will be a criminal himself. I'm saying that the odds are stacked against him.

1) He won't have a father.

2) His mother has terrible judgement and probably a history of abuse if she thinks daddy was a good man to sleep with.

What about poor people? If you dont earn over a certain amount by the time you are 30 do you get sterilized? I'd wager crime is more common among the poor than it is among the wealthy.

If you need government assistance do you get sterilized?

 

[kehs]

This is why we can't discuss these things. People don't like to consider difficult topics so they resort to name calling. Grow up.

If you would respond to the posts that people actually engage you in, you would have a point. You've however chosen to indirectly respond to comments.

 

[that1dude24]

I am not saying we should sterilize everyone who has a kid when they're too young. However, I bet that would decrease crime by a large amount over time. If you've read Freakonomics, you know abortion is one of many very plausible causes of the decreasing rates of crime.

Poverty is the cause of the crimes, not because they had a kid when they were a teen.

What I do truly think, is that violent criminals should be sterilized.

Why?

Antisocial personality disorder (or psychopathy) isn't genetic, so it isn't going to decrease crime. There is no genetic trait that makes sons of murderers murderers. Unless you're doing this as a sick form of revenge, there's absolutely no point.

Now, obviously this is impractical because people freak out over eugenics because it is associated with Nazism and racism. But people need to grow up, calm down, and consider eugenics without resorting to hysterics.

What the hell?
People freak out about eugenics because it's wrong to deterimine whether someone is fit to have a child or not; the only reason you're advocating it is because you think you'll be part of the group that won't have to be castrated.

Just because it has been done (mostly) incorrectly in the past, does not mean it is not potentially useful and YES- humane.

Determining whether someone is fit to reproduce isn't humane, no matter how you try to paint it.

 

[Vestal]

What about poor people? If you dont earn over a certain amount by the time you are 30 do you get sterilized? I'd wager crime is more common among the poor than it is among the wealthy.

If you need government assistance do you get sterilized?

We could say Crime is a subjective word.. For the Poor yeah its illegal, for the Rich its called WallStreet

 

[CornBurrito]

In Couey's case he was caught masturbating in a kids face, then he confessed to murdering a child later on in life. He gave details only he would know to people. There was no mistaking his innocence.

A sexual predator cannot become a well adjusted member of society. There is something physically wrong with them. A bank robber makes a choice, a sexual predator acts on instinct.

Cool beans, but the person I am talking too said "sterilization of criminals" not "sterilize people that confessed to the crime, and gave irrefutable proof that they did it."

What about this guy?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=433990

I would respond to this, but Devolution gave a better response.

There are so many factors you refuse to acknowledge that would make any sterilization program woefully inadequate, nevermind the ethical fucking quandary.

Who gets to decide these things? What makes them objective? What's the basis for it? What is the benchmark? You try to justify it with "well these violent criminals." So they're nothing but lab rats to you?

People like that may make you want to institute a eugenics program, however there are HUGE problems with establishing such a program.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

If you would respond to the posts that people actually engage you in, you would have a point. You've however chosen to indirectly respond to comments.

Well you could try my post then. It's less full of rage/batshittyness.

 

[Truth101]

No. People who can unfit to parent have caused roughly 100% of our society's problems.

You should change your avatar, someone with such low class shouldn't have classy things.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So I just read up on Buck v Bell Supreme Court case a bit.

I know that our Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions in the past but,

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.​

has to rank among the very worst in our history. 8-1 landslide decision, allowing forced sterilization to exist and persist.

and it has yet to be overturned?

Oh, and Oregon performed the last forced sterilization in 1981.

I'm truly troubled by this. WE gave the Nazi's the idea to "purify" their society.

 

[Coins]

What about poor people? If you dont earn over a certain amount by the time you are 30 do you get sterilized? I'd wager crime is more common among the poor than it is among the wealthy.

If you need government assistance do you get sterilized?

No. But would you be opposed to the government insisting that a young mother who asks for assistance to take birth control while shes on assistance? Of course the government would pay for it and make sure shes able to take it safely with a doctors examination.

 

[Vestal]

How were they law abiding if they were abusing children?

Abuse can have many meanings, like Neglect..


But it was a bad example he should have just put law abiding citizens and left it at that.. Because the absence of abuse doesn't guarantee having a good child.

 

[FutureZombie]

What about poor people? If you dont earn over a certain amount by the time you are 30 do you get sterilized? I'd wager crime is more common among the poor than it is among the wealthy.

If you need government assistance do you get sterilized?

Those are good questions. I don't have the answers but, intuitively, something seems wrong about sterilizing people for not having enough money. I guess we would have to work out some sort of equation that figures out who to sterilize. I doubt poor people would make the list simply for being poor.

This is all hypothetical, so for right now, let's not worry about slippery slope arguments.


If I'm not answering everyone's exact questions, I'm sorry. It's tough to keep up. I am working on it.

 

[Devolution]

We could say Crime is a subjective word.. For the Poor yeah its illegal, for the Rich its called WallStreet

No shit. Also plenty of rich people raise (or don't raise) great fucking people, or should I say their nannies or the help does. Money, "good" genetics, etc isn't a guarantee someone will be a great parent, and the lack of it doesn't guarantee someone else will be a shit parent. This is the problem with ascribing certain "qualifications" to raise kids or using the lack thereof as a reason to sterilize someone else.

 

[Yaboosh]

and it has yet to be overturned?

States seem to have ended their programs on their own without the need to take a case to the Supreme Court, so it was never overturned. The Supreme Court can only rule on cases put before them (which of course they choose themselves, but still).

 

[Yaboosh]

Those are good questions. I don't have the answers but, intuitively, something seems wrong about sterilizing people for not having enough money. I guess we would have to work out some sort of equation that figures out who to sterilize. I doubt poor people would make the list simply for being poor.

This is all hypothetical, so for right now, let's not worry about slippery slope arguments.


If I'm not answering everyone's exact questions, I'm sorry. It's tough to keep up. I am working on it.

Your naivete is staggering really.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No shit. Also plenty of rich people raise (or don't raise) great fucking people, or should I say their nannies or the help does. Money, "good" genetics, etc isn't a guarantee someone will be a great parent, and the lack of it doesn't guarantee someone else will be a shit parent. This is the problem with ascribing certain "qualifications" to raise kids or using the lack thereof as a reason to sterilize someone else.

I think you hear tons of people saying that the Hilton's and Kharwhatheverthellhernameis should be sterilized. Honestly, I think I've said that far more than about poor people. lol

 

[Devolution]

How were they law abiding if they were abusing children?

They didn't get caught and there was a time when "child abuse" wasn't prosecuted. My point being just because someone isn't an "ex-con" doesn't make them a good/decent parent.

 

[Zabka]

Aaah the good old days

 

[Dreams-Visions]

States seem to have ended their programs on their own without the need to take a case to the Supreme Court, so it was never overturned. The Supreme Court can only rule on cases put before them (which of course they choose themselves, but still).

o i c.

thanks for the insight.

 

[Devolution]

I think you hear tons of people saying that the Hilton's and Kharwhatheverthellhernameis should be sterilized. Honestly, I think I've said that far more than about poor people. lol

I know some where I live. The kids aren't terrible but they were literally raised by the hired help more so than their own parents. They managed to stay well adjusted but they have abandonment issues up the wazoo.

 

[Koomaster]

Not sure we should go around cutting people up and altering their biology when they commit crimes or do things we at this point in time find unacceptable. That doesn't seem to be a proper response in order to deter and decrease criminal activity.

We value a diverse gene pool as well; to start paring that down based on criminal activity seems short sighted at best.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I know some where I live. The kids aren't terrible but they were literally raised by the hired help more so than their own parents. They managed to stay well adjusted but they have abandonment issues up the wazoo.

Sometimes that's a necessity of working schedules, no different than for lower or middle income families where kids are raised by a Grandparent or day care. To an extent it's a side effect of the switch from one to two parent working families.

 

[CornBurrito]

Those are good questions. I don't have the answers but, intuitively, something seems wrong about sterilizing people for not having enough money.

Congrats, your call to sterilize criminals is essentially the same thing.

Crime is more prevalent among the poor in every single society. The wealthy that commit crime will almost assuredly be able to afford a better lawyer than a poor man who commits a crime. The difference in your lawyer's ability could possibly get you a lessened sentence without sterilization.

A system that punishes criminals is essentially classism. It will only further hurt the poor.

Also minorities are often more likely to commit crimes. So feel free to add in racism.

No. But would you be opposed to the government insisting that a young mother who asks for assistance to take birth control while shes on assistance? Of course the government would pay for it and make sure shes able to take it safely with a doctors examination.

No I wouldn't be opposed to that. Birth control is not permanent. It doesnt forever rob the woman of her ability to have kids.

 

[Devolution]

Sometimes that's a necessity of working schedules, no different than for lower or middle income families where kids are raised by a Grandparent or day care. To an extent it's a side effect of the switch from one to two parent working families.

But some kids fall through the cracks and that's apparently enough for Zombie.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Dude, there is an argument to be had about this, but not in this thread. Read the article. This was monstrous.

What's wrong with discussing it in this thread? It's not like it happened to the OP, personally. Sheesh some of you people need to man up and be able to discuss sensitive things without /wristing.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The Maafa21 documentary (available online) argues Planned Parenthood began as a eugenics program specifically for the black population in the US.

 

[FutureZombie]

I like to think of myself as a utilitarian. I have many short comings in this because I am too weak and selfish to fully follow the philosophy, but it has made significant changes in my life.


The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain.


If sterilizing an individual produces more happiness than pain, we should do it. Since I can envision many scenarios where sterilization causes more happiness than pain, I see no issue with sterilization in and of itself. It all depends on how we go about it.