Support NeoGAF

[Haly]

What if the main criteria was a severe genetic disorder that has a high (70+% chance) of being passed on to your children?

Severe in this case meaning a condition that requires yearly medical attention, treatment and care after initial onset of the disease.

EDIT: Another condition. The person being sterilized has reproduced at least once and refuses to refrain from reproduction.

Would any of you guys change your stance on sterilization in this situation?

 

[bigmakattack]

It's finally up at NPR. http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137347548&m=137351520

Just 4 minutes. Please listen.

"I was told if I continued to have children, that the livelihood of my family would suffer greatly."

That quote got me. It's like the state just assumes that they'll never be suited to sustain a family. And then threatening them that they can't have more children. These families deserve more compensation than I know the state will give them.

Will admit I was one the people who was never educated on this matter in school, but kinda glad I know about it now as stuff like this shouldn't be kept in the dark.

Edit:

What if the main criteria was a severe genetic disorder that has a high (70+% chance) of being passed on to your children?

Severe in this case meaning a condition that requires yearly medical attention, treatment and care after initial onset of the disease.

EDIT: Another condition. The person being sterilized has reproduced at least once and refuses to refrain from reproduction.

Would any of you guys change your stance on sterilization in this situation?

No, but I would maybe question why the mother would continue to reproduce if she had the knowledge that, more than likely, her children would suffer a terminal illness, or something of the sort.

 

[Jintor]

Holy fucking shit. I never knew this even happened.

 

[CornBurrito]

What if the main criteria was a severe genetic disorder that has a high (70+% chance) of being passed on to your children?

Severe in this case meaning a condition that requires yearly medical attention, treatment and care after initial onset of the disease.

EDIT: Another condition. The person being sterilized has reproduced at least once and refuses to refrain from reproduction.

Would any of you guys change your stance on sterilization in this situation?

No, I don't think I would. People with severe genetic disorders have still managed to have a decent life. And as you said, there would still be a chance of them having a child free of the disorder. If they wanted they could screen for the gene and abort the baby if they were worried about the quality of the child's life.

I also think assisted suicide should be an option for people with such illnesses, just in case they do end up having a life devoid of joy.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

No, I don't think I would. People with severe genetic disorders have still managed to have a decent life. And as you said, there would still be a chance of them having a child free of the disorder. If they wanted they could screen for the gene and abort the baby if they were worried about the quality of the child's life.

agreed.

 

[RustyNails]

Racism is a bitch. So is any superiority complex, no matter how 'soft touch' it might be. Quietly mutilating innocent women and girls in the name of "science". Hiding racism and hatred and a primal fear behind the "high minded" academic ideas of eugenics.

If anything at all happens, those women deserve a monument so people remember what was done to them. I knew about the eugenics programs, and I happened to see others referencing it at one of the bleeding heart liberal blogs I read, due to all the court battles. But beyond that, probably not too many people know about this. Most school curriculums probably try to fly past the Tuskegee experiments and the other incidents like it in the 20th century, so I wouldn't expect more than a couple of sentences about this as well. And haha, racist sumbitches in North Carolina are still trying to save money. "Well it wasn't us that did it. That was years before our time..very long ago. Like...you know..almost 10. So.... And any we're in a recession. Why should we be blamed for what our predecessors did?" hah. oh, the South.

Although there is a huge racism angle to the whole Eugenics program, I don't think every fool that is arguing for it is necessarily viewing it through the racism angle. It is mostly kids who come from highly sheltered life who are forced by their peers to have opinion on issues, issues that they read about in books but never witnessed any of the debilitating factors surrounding them. They have absolutely no clue about things they are talking about and never spent a day in their lives going to bed with an empty stomach. As usual, it's the poor people who must pay for every ills in society. They have been scapegoated since the Roman era. Back then, poor people were thrown into the coliseums for stealing bread. Today they are subject to eugenics. The people who think like this will be here 2000 years from now, thinking of newer ways to scapegoat poor people. For their own good, of course. Nobody wants to propose such type of things for white collar workers. Embezzlement, insider trading, ponzi schemes, etc, are white collar crimes that result in millions of dollars being stolen. Homicide, theft, rape, incest is not just a poor people problem.

What if the main criteria was a severe genetic disorder that has a high (70+% chance) of being passed on to your children?

Severe in this case meaning a condition that requires yearly medical attention, treatment and care after initial onset of the disease.

EDIT: Another condition. The person being sterilized has reproduced at least once and refuses to refrain from reproduction.

Would any of you guys change your stance on sterilization in this situation?

If there's a "severe genetic disorder", chances are the kid won't survive into adulthood, especially one that has a good chance to pass down. If the kid does survive into adulthood, it's still possible to lead a life that isn't completely shit. We have various special needs counseling programs, centers and support groups.

If the parents are explained about the facts surrounding the disease and it's crippling nature, in all likelihood they wouldn't want to have children. So I don't think such a scenario is realistic. Despite that, you and I still have no business sterilizing the person regardless of the person's decision.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I'd say we start the program back up for anyone suggesting this is a good idea. Society would greatly benefit with less authoritarian assholes around imposing thier poorly thought out ideas on the rest of us.

I have a strong feeling that assholes that think this way are not exactly swimming in pussy so maybe the problem will be self correcting.

 

[scar tissue]

i'm pro-sterilization if people have been proven to be bad parents, or are otherwise criminals
but kids? are you fucking kidding me?
ugh...

 

[Dreams-Visions]

i'm pro-sterilization if people have been proven to be bad parents

FORCED sterilization? as opposed to...parenting classes? why would a permanent solution that cannot change as people grow over the course of life be a rational solution in a civilized society?

or are otherwise criminals

FORCED sterilization? Because criminals never get rehabilitated and go on to contribute positively to society?

How will sterilization put a former criminal on the straight & narrow? If it doesn't, then what's the point of sterilizing them if their crime had nothing to do with their ability to raise a family (ie, not a pedo or similar)?

Why should a person with a felony conviction have to lose their right to have children one day? We have something like 2 million Americans in the prison system. Should all of them be sterilized in your world? and based on what rationale?

Help me understand.

 

[SmokyDave]

I'm taken aback by the number of people that knew nothing of this. I'm not even American and I was aware of the eugenics programs.

I'm in favour of sterilization in certain cases. Not those in the OP, however.

 

[IrishNinja]

I'm in favour of sterilization in certain cases. Not those in the OP, however.

I'll bite...which ones?

 

[scar tissue]

FORCED sterilization? Because criminals never get rehabilitated and go on to contribute positively to society?

How will sterilization put a former criminal on the straight & narrow? If it doesn't, then what's the point of sterilizing them if their crime had nothing to do with their ability to raise a family (ie, not a pedo or similar)?

Why should a person with a felony conviction have to lose their right to have children one day? We have something like 2 million Americans in the prison system. Should all of them be sterilized in your world? and based on what rationale?

Help me understand.

Not EVERY criminal, obviously...do i really need to mention that someone who stole an apple shouldn't be sterilized?
i'd be for sterilizing people who commit violent or sexual crimes
i.e. murderers, rapists, pedos, people who have commited multiple counts of severe assault and battery

 

[SmokyDave]

I'll bite...which ones?

Not the topic for it. It's obvious what the stance is on sterilization in this thread (driven primarily by the emotive content of the OP) and I can't be arsed with a constant stream of arguments today.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I'm taken aback by the number of people that knew nothing of this. I'm not even American and I was aware of the eugenics programs.

Probably explains why you were aware of it.

I'm in favour of sterilization in certain cases. Not those in the OP, however.

In what cases would you consider forced sterilization reasonable?

 

[Amir0x]

Yeah I heard about this long ago. It always rankled me that there wasn't more public outrage over it. I mean it's SO fucked up and SO self-evidently morally wrong that I was surprised we didn't see fucking riots over this shit back in the day.

$50,000? $20,000!? Try $1,000,000 a victim and we're starting somewhere.

I am pro-sterilization in only one instance: the instance of someone who has been convicted of molesting a child.

 

[ngower]

Watched a segment on Al Jazeera a little while ago. I've got material for an undergrad thesis!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Not EVERY criminal, obviously...do i really need to mention that someone who stole an apple shouldn't be sterilized?

After seeing some of the posters here comment, I can't take anything for granted, so yes you needed to mention that.

i'd be for sterilizing people who commit violent or sexual crimes

Can you be any more specific than that? Both of those are rather wide categories. Shooting a neighbor's dog is a violent crime. Getting into a fight at a club and beating someone up is a violent crime. What if you have a habit of doing either? Also, pissing on a street corner is a sexual crime. So is grabbing someone's ass at a club. I do not suppose to assume what you mean, so more specificity is good and important.

If you mean the most extreme of those (say, a murdering gang member and a molesting priest)...what of the gang bangers who stop gang banging? Are they not capable of raising a family if they leave that life and get out of prison? Of course they are, so what would be the point of castrating them?

In the case of the convicted and 100% verified child molester, it seems much more reasonable since sterilization can remove their sex drive. It may be the only way to protect the society from them. Even then, it'd have to be a slam-dunk conviction, because I don't think there's any going back from chemical castration. The first person wrongfully convicted and sterilized will probably be the last.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I am pro-sterilization in only one instance: the instance of someone who has been convicted of molesting a child.

So that's it? No possible redemption if they do it once? If you could demonstrate that child molestation is genetic then maybe I could agree.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So that's it? No possible redemption if they do it once? If you could demonstrate that child molestation is genetic then maybe I could agree.

Chemical sterilization can take away a person's sex drive. This would make the child molester's desire to molest significantly weaker, potentially protecting the rest of the society. So it's not about the child molester's ability to procreate so much as it is about slowing his desire to touch children inappropriately.

This is also the only scenario that I can consider reasonable rationale for sterilization. And it's an altogether different reason than Eugenics.

 

[scar tissue]

The first person wrongfully convicted and sterilized will probably be the last.

You mean like the first person wrongfully convicted and executed was the last?

Can you be any more specific than that? Both of those are rather wide categories. Shooting a neighbor's dog is a violent crime. Getting into a fight at a club and beating someone up is a violent crime. What if you have a habit of doing either? Also, pissing on a street corner is a sexual crime. So is grabbing someone's ass at a club. I do not suppose to assume what you mean, so more specificity is good and important.

If you mean the most extreme of those (say, a murdering gang member and a molesting priest)...what of the gang bangers who stop gang banging? Are they not capable of raising a family if they leave that life and get out of prison? Of course they are, so what would be the point of castrating them?

It depends on the context of the incident(s).
Getting into a fight in a club once in a while shouldn't be enough, but if someone routinely gets into fights (that end with him or his opponent in the hospital) and generally shows extreme aggression and violence, that person should be sterilized.
Pissing into the corner shouldn't be a sex crime, that's just stupid. As for grabbing ass, that's a rather light one. I'm talking rapist or child molester here.
As for the gang banger who quit, I like to think that anyone who has commited multiple murders has lost his chance for a family life. Yeah, he might have turned away from that life, but that doesn't change that he is scum.
Murdering multiple people isn't just a one-time bad decision like driving over the speed limit.

 

[Zenith]

I've never heard of this. Not in any documentary or race-relation history book. It's sickening to think crimes against humanity were being perpetrated in the 70s and nothing has been fucking done about it. Where are our Nuremberg trials?

 

[Amir0x]

So that's it? No possible redemption if they do it once? If you could demonstrate that child molestation is genetic then maybe I could agree.

Yup. Sorry. No excuses. We're adults who know right from wrong. You molest a kid, you're irredeemable: a low life piece of garbage deserving of having his balls chopped up, period. No debate necessary.

In the first place they deserve to be in jail for life. But since the law usually doesn't go that far, we'll settle for those horrendous monsters not being able to prowl on kids once they get out.

Of course this is only for cases of proven child rape. None of them iffy maybe/or shit. I don't want any innocents getting their balls dipped in acid.

 

[Steelrain]

Yeah we had a few classes on this a few years back. Really sad stuff. Pseudoscience is shitty.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Any of you heard of 'Project Prevention'?

They pay drug addicts to sterilize themselves.

She explained that her charity discourages unfit parents from giving birth—thereby reducing the number of children born addicted to crack and easing the burden on social services.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1981916,00.html

 

[PnCIa]

I've never heard of this. Not in any documentary or race-relation history book. It's sickening to think crimes against humanity were being perpetrated in the 70s and nothing has been fucking done about it. Where are our Nuremberg trials?

Until the now the US was never beaten from a military point of view. History is written by the victors.

 

[scar tissue]

Any of you heard of 'Project Prevention'?

They pay drug addicts to sterilize themselves.



http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1981916,00.html

This is a pretty good idea, I'd expand the payments to anyone who sterilizes himself.
The world is overpopulated, and this would be the least messy way to solve this.

 

[jorma]

Yup. Sorry. No excuses.

Indeed, no excuses. Forced sterilization is always a crime against humanity. And human garbage is still human.

 

[Amir0x]

Indeed, no excuses. Forced sterilization is always a crime against humanity. And human garbage is still human.

Nope. Not in the case of child molesters. There is no possible argument you or anyone else can make to convince me that a monstrous child molester is anything but human excrement worthy of having his balls dipped in acid.

If you can make ONE non-hippie argument not invoking fucking koombayah holding hands bs then I'll consider it; you can't, of course, since child molesters are impossible to defend

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Yup. Sorry. No excuses. We're adults who know right from wrong. You molest a kid, you're irredeemable: a low life piece of garbage deserving of having his balls chopped up, period. No debate necessary.

In the first place they deserve to be in jail for life. But since the law usually doesn't go that far, we'll settle for those horrendous monsters not being able to prowl on kids once they get out.

Of course this is only for cases of proven child rape. None of them iffy maybe/or shit. I don't want any innocents getting their balls dipped in acid.

If you're promoting the changing of the law, and acknowledge that these people should be life in prison anyway, then what's the point of saying you're pro-sterilization? If you want to give people the option to get chemically castrated in exchange for a reduced sentence, fine, but mandatory? No way.

Secondly, criminal cases already have the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but shit still slips through the cracks. What are you supposed to change it to? Beyond double super unreasonable doubt x 10? This is an inherent problem of the system that you can't get around in any foreseeable way, which is why such permanent punishments are not preferred compared to prison sentences (which can, at least, be stopped if it comes to light that they were wrongly convicted).

There is no possible argument you or anyone else can make to convince me that a monstrous child molester is anything but human excrement worthy of having his balls dipped in acid.

You may as well stop posting then.

 

[scar tissue]

Indeed, no excuses. Forced sterilization is always a crime against humanity. And human garbage is still human.

only genetically.
there is nothing human going on in the mind of a child rapist.

 

[jorma]

Nope. Not in the case of child molesters. There is no possible argument you or anyone else can make to convince me that a monstrous child molester is anything but human excrement worthy of having his balls dipped in acid.

If you can make ONE non-hippie argument not invoking fucking koombayah holding hands bs then I'll consider it; you can't, of course, since child molesters are impossible to defend

I'm not defending child molesters, there is no need.

I'm saying that forcing sterilization on anyone is a crime against humanity.

 

[IrishNinja]

since we're at 4 pages now and this is slowing down: i'm not ok with allowing the state to sterilize anyone, including child molesters. if we can prove it's on some genetic level, and rehab is an absolute failure, logically we gotta do something else - be it even harsher zoning or not let them leave their cells (arguably worse, granted). i don't believe creating the precedent of allowing our gov't to take this action, even in this instance, is worth it. i'm not any more fond of the logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument than most of you, but i feel it's applicable here. do we take this action if the convict fucked a 17 year old, or 15, or where exactly is the line when it's ok to go down this road?

*edit: jorna said it more succinctly, i'm hoping the logic here doesn't equate "pedo defense force" in anyone honestly reading this. the threat is viable and requires a long, harsh dialogue; this particular cure strikes me as worse than the disease though.

 

[Amir0x]

If you're promoting the changing of the law, and acknowledge that these people should be life in prison anyway, then what's the point of saying you're pro-sterilization? If you want to give people the option to get chemically castrated in exchange for a reduced sentence, fine, but mandatory? No way.

Because they don't go to jail for life. And who knows what happens down the line - what if these monsters get parole? No way it's worth risking it. Something like 55~60% of these freaks re-offend.

Secondly, criminal cases already have the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but shit still slips through the cracks. What are you supposed to change it to? Beyond double super unreasonable doubt x 10? This is an inherent problem of the system that you can't get around in any foreseeable way, which is why such permanent punishments are not preferred compared to prison sentences (which can, at least, be stopped if it comes to light that they were wrongly convicted).

No, I'm talking demonstrated with DNA or video other type of unassailable evidence. If you find DNA of some monster on a kid's genitals, it's rock solid. Otherwise if your case is not at 100%, then you go to jail for life. In the rare case it's proven wrong then there won't be a mistake.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not actually pushed to that stringent standard. This would be.

I'm saying that forcing sterilization on anyone is a crime against humanity.

That's not an argument. That's just hippie bullshit based on idealism. You can meditate on that and repeat the mantra, it's not going to change that these child molesters deserve sterilization. They should NEVER have children; they should NEVER be able to rape again in that fashion.

 

[scar tissue]

[...]since child molesters are impossible to defend

so are murderers in cold blood and rapists, I'd argue
Or what makes pedos (objectively) worse than murderers in cold blood?
Sterilize 'em all, I say!

 

[Jangocube]

Terrible thing that happened.

That said, I don't see something like this being a bad thing in the future. Overpopulation will be a real threat to mankind eventually and I don't think everyone will adopt a one child rule. But anyways...

 

[Vagabundo]

Of course this is only for cases of proven child rape. None of them iffy maybe/or shit. I don't want any innocents getting their balls dipped in acid.

You know that's just not feasible.

I'd never be in favour of Forced sterilisation, but I'd go with voluntary sterilisation as an option for repeat sex offenders.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

only genetically.
there is nothing human going on in the mind of a child rapist.

Huh?

Define human please. The primary difference between someone who can't control their impulse to gamble their life away and someone who can't control their impulse to molest children is the target of their addiction/obsession. The same systems that govern the behavior of a child molester governs the behavior of model citizens, but one or more things have "gone wrong" (for whatever reason) in the former. Thus, the purpose of the penal system is to either rehabilitate these people, or if this is infeasible, to separate them from the larger population to prevent any further harm from occurring on their behalf.

I know you're just expressing your righteous indignation at these behaviors, but the minds that produce them are most assuredly "human", and they are not necessarily being deliberately malevolent. We cannot accept their behavior under any circumstances, but saying they are "non-human" or "monsters" is quite counterproductive if your goal is to prevent future occurrences - accurate understanding of the problem is necessary to implement effective solutions.

Because they don't go to jail for life. And who knows what happens down the line - what if these monsters get parole? No way it's worth risking it. Something like 55~60% of these freaks re-offend.

They don't get sterilized, either. So if we're in the magical wonderland where our whims become law, they would stay in gaol for life.

No, I'm talking demonstrated with DNA or video other type of unassailable evidence. If you find DNA of some monster on a kid's genitals, it's rock solid. Otherwise if your case is not at 100%, then you go to jail for life. In the rare case it's proven wrong then there won't be a mistake.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not actually pushed to that stringent standard. This would be.

So what's happening if they don't get convicted in this way? Do they get off scott free, or do they get put in the "maybe you didn't do it, sucks to be you" prison?

That's not an argument. That's just hippie bullshit based on idealism. You can meditate on that and repeat the mantra, it's not going to change that these child molesters deserve sterilization. They should NEVER have children; they should NEVER be able to rape again in that fashion.

Please step back and listen to what you are saying. You appear to have asserted "child molesters deserve sterilization" as the premise of your position, and is also the conclusion. Saying "they deserve it" or "they are irredeemable" is not a stronger position than simply stating that they ought to be sterilized to begin with. If you are wishing simply to express your opinion, that's fine, but if you're trying to convince anybody else that theirs is wrong, then it's just begging the question, and can be dismissed on these grounds alone.

I should also note that if you are merely expressing your views, you have chosen to do it in an extremely abrasive way, and it would be great if you could stop belittling people and calling them hippies for disagreeing with you.

 

[jaxword]

12000 years from today: Future archaeologists will unearth arguments like this and marvel at how privileged we all were to live in a time when the entire planet wasn't overpopulated to the verge of collapse and sterilization became a regular event after the first child.

 

[IrishNinja]

^ that's gotta be the weakest cop-out for buying this argument i've ever heard. fuck man, at least amirox had a current point to back his caveat.

 

[Vagabundo]

12000 years from today: Future archaeologists will unearth arguments like this and marvel at how privileged we all were to live in a time when the entire planet wasn't overpopulated to the verge of collapse and sterilization became a regular event after the first child.

lol what a poor view you have of human progress.

In 12000 years we'll be scooting around the universe in hyperdrive starships or will have accented to a pure energy inter-dimensional micro universe.

 

[jaxword]

^ that's gotta be the weakest cop-out for buying this argument i've ever heard. fuck man, at least amirox had a current point to back his caveat.

Are you talking to me? I never said I was in favor of forced sterilization; we don't nearly have governments smart enough to handle that responsibility. But it's gonna happen anyways, someday.

 

[IrishNinja]

yeah, i was - and i reject your premise, but this thread's already a hot mess without bringing the overpopulation topic into it. i've said my piece, just wanted to check back & see if amirox found it less've a hippie answer.

 

[jaxword]

yeah, i was - and i reject your premise, but this thread's already a hot mess without bringing the overpopulation topic into it. i've said my piece, just wanted to check back & see if amirox found it less've a hippie answer.

Dude, learn how to quote. Otherwise it's not clear who you're replying to and makes you look like you're talking to yourself...which makes it a little weird to read.

 

[IrishNinja]

yeah, because quoting is some mystical art, and posting right after you makes things magically confusing.
if someone posts between us, id edit and say it was aimed @ you. if that doesn't happen, i don't feel the need to repeat what you just said.

ps i hope you don't read many of Teknopathetic's posts.

 

[darkiguana]

The problem with giving the government the power the ability to sterilize people, violent or otherwise, is that when you give the government that kind of power it is rife for abuse. It is easy to say sterilze serial killers/rapists. The problem is what about the lesser of the violent crimes(robbery, etc). Where do you draw the line? And what happens if the supposed killer/rapist is wrongly convicted? You have just taken away a basic human right for no reason. You can't reverse castration/tubal ligation, as far as I know.


And don't even get me started on forced abortions.

 

[scar tissue]

I know you're just expressing your righteous indignation at these behaviors, but the minds that produce them are most assuredly "human", and they are not necessarily being deliberately malevolent. We cannot accept their behavior under any circumstances, but saying they are "non-human" or "monsters" is quite counterproductive if your goal is to prevent future occurrences - accurate understanding of the problem is necessary to implement effective solutions.

I know they're not being deliberately malevolent. Pedophiles didn't choose to be pedophiles. In fact, some part of me pities them.
But consider this:
A man-eating tiger didn't choose to kill dozens of people. It's not his fault, yet he has to be locked away or put down.
Same thing goes for pedophiles.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I know they're not being deliberately malevolent. Pedophiles didn't choose to be pedophiles. In fact, some part of me pities them.
But consider this:
A man-eating tiger didn't choose to kill dozens of people. It's not his fault, yet he has to be locked away or put down.
Same thing goes for pedophiles.

Indeed, which is why I'm supporting gaol sentences for them

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm a cold hearted rational person. And for that reason, I'm going to say, eugenics... is not a terrible idea.

At least in the land of magical unicorns where you can hold inconvenient variables at bay, like human emotional response.

Also been a rational person, I'm going to start right now, it's a suboptimal solution to other issues that it purports to deal with.

When you combine the two, it's just straight out terrible, feasible only in the minds of loathesome bigoted people who let their biases get in the way of properly accounting for all relevant factors in a rational decision making process.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I'm a cold hearted rational person. And for that reason, I'm going to say, eugenics... is not a terrible idea.

At least in the land of magical unicorns where you can hold inconvenient variables at bay, like human emotional response.

Also been a rational person, I'm going to start right now, it's a suboptimal solution to other issues that it purports to deal with.

When you combine the two, it's just straight out terrible, feasible only in the minds of loathesome bigoted people who let their biases get in the way of properly accounting for all relevant factors in a rational decision making process.

This is fair, but never doubt the ability of human beings to rationalize. I know that's kinda what your getting at in this post, but Eugenics very rarely seems like a good idea to me. Even the example of castrating rapists, that's not eugenics be practiced, as the ability to have children is not the motivating factor there.

Its conceptually a dangerous idea, and attempts to conflate human error-prone calculation over top of natural diversity and randomness. Bleh all around.

Also, on topic, I don't feel like these poor women should receive some big cash payout. But, other options I would agree with, like: free health care for life (no cracks, we don't have that yet, and many of these women are having issues from this sterilization), no income taxes for life, ...

I'm not completely against a cash payout, $20K certainly seems to little to me, as does Wombles' $50K, but I hate having to play 'price the pain' on any of this.

 

[Zaptruder]

One argument .... well, not exactly in favour of child molestors, but in defense of their humanity is:

If we stop regarding them as automatically the worse thing ever possible in the world so bad that we should just stop critical and rational thinking when they're concerned is...

that because we demonize them so heavily, we also demonize things by association - we allow those that would seek to control us to manipulate our fears and clamp our freedoms by citing child molestation.

Case in point; australian internet censorship.

I can also list a fairly long list of things more terrible than child molestation (not to say it isn't bad, but there are forms of neglect that we allow and don't question that I personally think are more developmentally harmful for children than sexually abusing them - of course the people around children that abuse them in that manner also tend to perpetuate a long list of other harmful things on them).