Yes, I understand that. But I happen to believe that punishing people for potential future crimes is wrong.
Is bearing children an inherit human right?
- Thread starter LooseCannon
- Start date
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
You got me there. But I also happen to believe that preventing potential future crimes isn't that wrong.
However, I still don't think this will happen soon. First the parliament has to say yes, which will be unlikely.
Even if that would happen, this measure probably will break some laws.
However, I still don't think this will happen soon. First the parliament has to say yes, which will be unlikely.
Even if that would happen, this measure probably will break some laws.
Yes - prevention via education, incarceration, etc.
Not by forcing medicine on people.
Not by forcing medicine on people.
I would be pretty shocked if this law passed. It seems like a major overreaction to a sad series of events. Government can't legislate reproductive habits without violating the basic rights to which we all ascribe. It's called eugenics, and it's not something we ought to pass.
I do believe the Dutch have better things to do than bother with this junk.
I do believe the Dutch have better things to do than bother with this junk.
cornfedhick said:
Oh fuck political correctness.
It's a woman's right to bear a child and a man's child to produce it. It's always been, and it always should be. It's every fucking female penguin's right to lay an egg and every male penguin's right to breed it.
Anybody who tries to take away somebody the right to create, bear and raise a child should be shot in the fucking throat. It's the very nature of every living being to reproduce. Next thing, we're going to have some parliament of self-styled representatives of the people who are in fact overpaid idiots who have no clue what they're talking about deny certain people their survival instinct. It's really not far from here.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
My my. Well well.
What can I say, some years ago people reacted as shocked and angry when they learnt what abortion was:
"This time the Dutch have gone too far!!"
Or when they learnt what euthanasia was:
"This time the Dutch have gone too far!!!!"
Or when they learnt what rights we have given to homosexuals:
"This time the Dutch have gone too far!!!!!"
Of course, many are still shocked. Let them scream their throats off:
Several countries have followed these "immoral" ways.
Some of these ways kill life. Are these killings less shocking than trying to find new ways in order to prevent proven unfit parents from abusing/killling their own children? To protect their children? To protect parents from killing their (current and/or future) children?
Do people have the right to have goddamned fun when killing animals (Sarah Palin)? Do people have the right to make others suffer?
-To make other people suffer-
Some of these ways help life. Do people have the right to decide what's best for homosexuals? Some governments just love to get under their skin and deny rights to them. Or worse: to deny them completely, while preaching "Love your neighbor as yourself"!
Less shocking isn't it?
I do wonder if some people think about its purpose.
Anti-conception can be temporary. To me, the following sounds worse:
Following the passage of a modification to Section 645 of the California penal code in 1996, California became the first U.S. state to enact compulsory castration as punishment for child molestation. This law stipulates that anyone convicted of child molestation with a minor under 13 years of age may be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (brand name: Depo Provera) if they are on parole and if this is their second offense. Offenders are required to accept the chemical castration treatment or face physical castration The passage of this law led to similar laws, such as Florida's Statute Section 794.0235 which was passed into law in 1997.
Child molestors of California, welcome to Holland! You will surely get a more humane treatment overhere.
Some more:
At least six states in the United States (California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana) have experimented with chemical castration laws, according to Jeffrey Kirchmeier. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In cases in which the victim is under 13 years of age, California judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense, treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 June 25, 2008, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration. Depo-Provera, a progestin, is a drug that is sometimes used on sex offenders, as is medroxyprogesterone.
Not angry enough? Not sick enough? Find out about the horror of Canada and Sweden with their mass sterilization campaigns in the 20th century, go ahead.
In those days racial politics became involved, as there was a strong belief in the connection between race and genetic integrity among leading scientists and those carrying out the sterilizations.
This is not in the same line with what's going on today. Don't mix it up: entirely different purpose!
Still I understand LooseCannon's background. He is from Canada and has probably heard of all this. And this:
...This discussion also cites a landmark case in substituted consent known as the Mrs. E. vs. Eve case. In it, a mother, "Mrs. E.", wished to have her moderately intellectually disabled daughter "Eve" sterilized to save her the emotional distress potentially caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Additionally, it was argued that Eve would neither be capable of using any other method of contraception, nor caring for a child should she become pregnant. Since the sterilization was not explicitly therapeutic and carried grave physical harm and an intrusion on Eve's rights, Mrs. E. could not be given the authority to have her daughter sterilized. It was then explored whether or not the government itself could make the decision, using parens patriae jurisdiction.
Parens patriae allows the government to make authorizations in the "best interests" where no other source of consent can be attained; this includes children and mentally disabled persons. In the Eve case, the risks were deemed too high and the benefits too obscure to authorize a nontherapeutic sterilization via parens patriae jurisdiction, since a surgical sterilization is an irreversible procedure.
My summary of this whole topic:
1. The whole thing is (still) taboo
2. I reckon we just have different opinions on Parens patriae.
Last but not least:
This new Dutch plan (which is still a plan, and nothing more) does not make a difference between mentally disabled persons and non mentally disabled persons. It purely looks at parents, being unfit to have (more) children.
Mentally disabled can take care of children in a good manner, especially when they get support from family and others. Also people without restrictions need that support, because the perfect parent does not exist.
I read that the author of the plan means "to prevent extreme situations when judges constantly displace children out of their houses, while new children keep coming".
What can I say, some years ago people reacted as shocked and angry when they learnt what abortion was:
"This time the Dutch have gone too far!!"
Or when they learnt what euthanasia was:
"This time the Dutch have gone too far!!!!"
Or when they learnt what rights we have given to homosexuals:
"This time the Dutch have gone too far!!!!!"
Of course, many are still shocked. Let them scream their throats off:
Several countries have followed these "immoral" ways.
Some of these ways kill life. Are these killings less shocking than trying to find new ways in order to prevent proven unfit parents from abusing/killling their own children? To protect their children? To protect parents from killing their (current and/or future) children?
Do people have the right to have goddamned fun when killing animals (Sarah Palin)? Do people have the right to make others suffer?
-To make other people suffer-
Some of these ways help life. Do people have the right to decide what's best for homosexuals? Some governments just love to get under their skin and deny rights to them. Or worse: to deny them completely, while preaching "Love your neighbor as yourself"!
Less shocking isn't it?
LooseCannon said:
I do wonder if some people think about its purpose.
Anti-conception can be temporary. To me, the following sounds worse:
Following the passage of a modification to Section 645 of the California penal code in 1996, California became the first U.S. state to enact compulsory castration as punishment for child molestation. This law stipulates that anyone convicted of child molestation with a minor under 13 years of age may be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (brand name: Depo Provera) if they are on parole and if this is their second offense. Offenders are required to accept the chemical castration treatment or face physical castration The passage of this law led to similar laws, such as Florida's Statute Section 794.0235 which was passed into law in 1997.
Child molestors of California, welcome to Holland! You will surely get a more humane treatment overhere.
Some more:
At least six states in the United States (California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana) have experimented with chemical castration laws, according to Jeffrey Kirchmeier. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In cases in which the victim is under 13 years of age, California judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense, treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 June 25, 2008, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration. Depo-Provera, a progestin, is a drug that is sometimes used on sex offenders, as is medroxyprogesterone.
Not angry enough? Not sick enough? Find out about the horror of Canada and Sweden with their mass sterilization campaigns in the 20th century, go ahead.
In those days racial politics became involved, as there was a strong belief in the connection between race and genetic integrity among leading scientists and those carrying out the sterilizations.
This is not in the same line with what's going on today. Don't mix it up: entirely different purpose!
Still I understand LooseCannon's background. He is from Canada and has probably heard of all this. And this:
...This discussion also cites a landmark case in substituted consent known as the Mrs. E. vs. Eve case. In it, a mother, "Mrs. E.", wished to have her moderately intellectually disabled daughter "Eve" sterilized to save her the emotional distress potentially caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Additionally, it was argued that Eve would neither be capable of using any other method of contraception, nor caring for a child should she become pregnant. Since the sterilization was not explicitly therapeutic and carried grave physical harm and an intrusion on Eve's rights, Mrs. E. could not be given the authority to have her daughter sterilized. It was then explored whether or not the government itself could make the decision, using parens patriae jurisdiction.
Parens patriae allows the government to make authorizations in the "best interests" where no other source of consent can be attained; this includes children and mentally disabled persons. In the Eve case, the risks were deemed too high and the benefits too obscure to authorize a nontherapeutic sterilization via parens patriae jurisdiction, since a surgical sterilization is an irreversible procedure.
My summary of this whole topic:
1. The whole thing is (still) taboo
2. I reckon we just have different opinions on Parens patriae.
Last but not least:
This new Dutch plan (which is still a plan, and nothing more) does not make a difference between mentally disabled persons and non mentally disabled persons. It purely looks at parents, being unfit to have (more) children.
Mentally disabled can take care of children in a good manner, especially when they get support from family and others. Also people without restrictions need that support, because the perfect parent does not exist.
I read that the author of the plan means "to prevent extreme situations when judges constantly displace children out of their houses, while new children keep coming".
Okay, I phrased that very (too) aggressively up there. I'm sorry if I offended somebody... but I still stand by the content of my post*. And please note that I never, ever mentioned the word "Dutch". I never attacked the Dutch, and I never attacked those people who came up with this idea on the grounds of them being Dutch. As far as I'm concerned, they could be from anywhere.
My problem with this idea is that we are talking about something that is much more fundamental than all the other examples Foro listed. Childbearing is more than a right. It is a fundamental human duty. It's what keeps our species alive. If we start forbidding people to have children, we might as well pack it up entirely.
And another thing I'm really worried about here is that this is basically pre-emtive justice. The parents are being punished for a crime they did not commit, but are assumed that they would commit it later on. Here again, if we reach that point, we might as well start jailing everybody then, because everybody is a potential bank robber, murderer, spy, terrorist or whatnot.
I know that it is still just a plan, but I sure as hell hope that it'll never be any more.
*Of course, not the "shot in the throat" part.
My problem with this idea is that we are talking about something that is much more fundamental than all the other examples Foro listed. Childbearing is more than a right. It is a fundamental human duty. It's what keeps our species alive. If we start forbidding people to have children, we might as well pack it up entirely.
And another thing I'm really worried about here is that this is basically pre-emtive justice. The parents are being punished for a crime they did not commit, but are assumed that they would commit it later on. Here again, if we reach that point, we might as well start jailing everybody then, because everybody is a potential bank robber, murderer, spy, terrorist or whatnot.
I know that it is still just a plan, but I sure as hell hope that it'll never be any more.
*Of course, not the "shot in the throat" part.
Forostar, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Despite the fact that you've set up a straw man (several, really), here, I am going to respond to your points. But this is the last time. In the future, I am going to post a picture of a straw man and ignore your arguments, since they are logically useless.
I don't understand why you love to argue the past instead of the future. Sure, Canada has some bad things in it's past. But all the programs you highlighted have ended because they have been declared inhumane and illegal.
From the same page: "In 1995, Leilani was awarded $750,000CAD and $230,000CAD in damages for her wrongful and humiliating labeling as a moron and her subsequent sterilization. Since the victory, another 1300 cases have been opened, several of them concerning individuals who may have actual mental disabilities. It is unlikely they will be awarded any settlements based on stigmatization, but they may win suits based on involuntary sterilization, which is now considered battery under Canadian law."
When it comes to chemical castration, I disagree with it. First of all, it doesn't work. It's a placebo that makes people feel better about a released offender, while it may actually increase his/her rate of reoffense. Most countries will never do that. I think we can all agree that the USA isn't exactly a beacon of human rights in this day and age.
Now, let me say all of this: None of what you said in that post meant anything, up until here:
Yes, we certainly have different opinions on the right of the state to act as a parent. I believe the state must be guided by a series of rights a person has, regardless of crimes committed, regardless of their track record. The government retains the right, under parens patriae, to remove a new child from a poor situation, and then take that child and find him/her a family in which it can grow up loved and cared for. This is sufficient to ensure the safety of children.
Unlike all the things you moaned and groaned about in your opening, Foro, this isn't about the government granting rights where none previously existed (the right to choose an abortion, the right to choose to end your life, the right to marry someone of the same sex), this is about the government removing rights (the right to have one's body safe from intrusion). The government, in its legal contract with the people (an implied contract in most European nations, I don't know if the Netherlands has a written constitution) has determined that if a person violates a law, they are subject to losing their right to freedom for a period of time - imprisonment. In one country in the west, they may also lose their right to life.
I could say, "at what point would the government stop!", but for me, I don't think a slippery slope fallacy is needed here. In no case should the government mandate injections, pills, or medicine, unless you are in the government's care (prison, hospital, mental ward), and even then it should only be what's required to be healthy, not anything else. We all have rights to choose what occurs with our body. As Perun said, our purpose as a species is to reproduce. We are lucky enough to have structures in place to ensure that our offspring are raised in good environments (or, at least, not in the absolute worst ones). Our rights exist, partially, to protect our purpose, and I assure you, it wouldn't matter what country was trying this nonsense - I'd find it equally as outraging and ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Despite the fact that you've set up a straw man (several, really), here, I am going to respond to your points. But this is the last time. In the future, I am going to post a picture of a straw man and ignore your arguments, since they are logically useless.
I don't understand why you love to argue the past instead of the future. Sure, Canada has some bad things in it's past. But all the programs you highlighted have ended because they have been declared inhumane and illegal.
From the same page: "In 1995, Leilani was awarded $750,000CAD and $230,000CAD in damages for her wrongful and humiliating labeling as a moron and her subsequent sterilization. Since the victory, another 1300 cases have been opened, several of them concerning individuals who may have actual mental disabilities. It is unlikely they will be awarded any settlements based on stigmatization, but they may win suits based on involuntary sterilization, which is now considered battery under Canadian law."
When it comes to chemical castration, I disagree with it. First of all, it doesn't work. It's a placebo that makes people feel better about a released offender, while it may actually increase his/her rate of reoffense. Most countries will never do that. I think we can all agree that the USA isn't exactly a beacon of human rights in this day and age.
Now, let me say all of this: None of what you said in that post meant anything, up until here:
Forostar said:
Yes, we certainly have different opinions on the right of the state to act as a parent. I believe the state must be guided by a series of rights a person has, regardless of crimes committed, regardless of their track record. The government retains the right, under parens patriae, to remove a new child from a poor situation, and then take that child and find him/her a family in which it can grow up loved and cared for. This is sufficient to ensure the safety of children.
Unlike all the things you moaned and groaned about in your opening, Foro, this isn't about the government granting rights where none previously existed (the right to choose an abortion, the right to choose to end your life, the right to marry someone of the same sex), this is about the government removing rights (the right to have one's body safe from intrusion). The government, in its legal contract with the people (an implied contract in most European nations, I don't know if the Netherlands has a written constitution) has determined that if a person violates a law, they are subject to losing their right to freedom for a period of time - imprisonment. In one country in the west, they may also lose their right to life.
I could say, "at what point would the government stop!", but for me, I don't think a slippery slope fallacy is needed here. In no case should the government mandate injections, pills, or medicine, unless you are in the government's care (prison, hospital, mental ward), and even then it should only be what's required to be healthy, not anything else. We all have rights to choose what occurs with our body. As Perun said, our purpose as a species is to reproduce. We are lucky enough to have structures in place to ensure that our offspring are raised in good environments (or, at least, not in the absolute worst ones). Our rights exist, partially, to protect our purpose, and I assure you, it wouldn't matter what country was trying this nonsense - I'd find it equally as outraging and ridiculous.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
@LC: That opening paragraph was written with so much anger, disgust & threat that I truly feel I have made a point in my previous post. Post as many pictures as you like, it only shows a lack of content.
While being in the process of trying to ignore some unfair personal crap I'll still address some of your points:
"We all have rights to choose what occurs with our body."
As told in my previous post, we don't. California remember?
"As Perun said, our purpose as a species is to reproduce."
That's an opinion, often preached by the church. It is not a law. It is not a rule.
"Our rights exist, partially, to protect our purpose, and I assure you, it wouldn't matter what country was trying this nonsense - I'd find it equally as outraging and ridiculous."
And I made this forum aware of worse laws (no plans) on your own continent, where things happen in a way more rigid manner than in other Western places. If you're truly so shocked why not protest against it and send letters?
I didn't mean to make it personal, and I didn't take it personal either. I tried to learn from "the other topic" in which Mav returned and I'd hoped others would have done the same.
So I was actually talking to the "general opposition", not minding to name countries. Actually I like to do it to show a bigger perspective.
This is a too simple description of what's really intended. I have already said enough about that in my previous post, so I won't repeat it all right now, if you don't mind.
Well, in some cases they did commit a crime and it's very likely that they'd do it again. Behaviour can be monitored and evaluated. Next decision by a judge -> Good behavior: have another child. Bad behavior: prolongation.
Pre-emtive justice takes place in the whole world, the given example of chemical castration is only one, and that is way worse and (I reckon) a permenent punishment.
While being in the process of trying to ignore some unfair personal crap I'll still address some of your points:
"We all have rights to choose what occurs with our body."
As told in my previous post, we don't. California remember?
"As Perun said, our purpose as a species is to reproduce."
That's an opinion, often preached by the church. It is not a law. It is not a rule.
"Our rights exist, partially, to protect our purpose, and I assure you, it wouldn't matter what country was trying this nonsense - I'd find it equally as outraging and ridiculous."
And I made this forum aware of worse laws (no plans) on your own continent, where things happen in a way more rigid manner than in other Western places. If you're truly so shocked why not protest against it and send letters?
Perun said:
I didn't mean to make it personal, and I didn't take it personal either. I tried to learn from "the other topic" in which Mav returned and I'd hoped others would have done the same.
So I was actually talking to the "general opposition", not minding to name countries. Actually I like to do it to show a bigger perspective.
Perun said:
This is a too simple description of what's really intended. I have already said enough about that in my previous post, so I won't repeat it all right now, if you don't mind.
Perun said:
Well, in some cases they did commit a crime and it's very likely that they'd do it again. Behaviour can be monitored and evaluated. Next decision by a judge -> Good behavior: have another child. Bad behavior: prolongation.
Pre-emtive justice takes place in the whole world, the given example of chemical castration is only one, and that is way worse and (I reckon) a permenent punishment.
I don't understand why we're arguing about bearing children being a right or not...it's not a right per se because it's a NATURAL HUMAN FUNCTION. Forbiddding child-bearing (to women) is like forbidding people to take a shit. Also, like Perun said, if we want the human species to continue then we need to have people who bear children. Simple as that. Child-bearing goes beyond rights and things that a government can/should control because it comes with the territory of being human. The government can't interfere with the function of eating, so it can't pass laws prohibiting it (that's just self-destruction right there). For me, that's the end of the child-bearing "rights" discussion.
As for the entire discussion here, I stand by what I said earlier regardless of whatever's been said. This is going way too far and smacks of all sorts of things to do with "making superior people by not letting the perceived inferior reproduce". The infamous Nazi T4 program anyone? Also, why is the homosexual question getting drawn into this? The Dutch gave rights to them because (a) they're not criminals and (b) oh yeah, they realized marriage in this sense was a matter of civil rights not religious rights (which maybe other countries should think about). Perun, LC and myself are also not religious rednecks from deep in the heart of Texas arguing against this, which are primarily the people who would be shouting against all the things Forostar listed, thus making the concerns we have about it more legitimate because oh, we weren't shouting "this time the Dutch have gone too far!" when abortion and euthanasia and all the rest were instituted. Let the Dutch government be steered by compassion towards these people as they were when they gave rights to the homosexuals. Everybody deserves another chance. And everybody has the unalienable right to reproduce.
As for the entire discussion here, I stand by what I said earlier regardless of whatever's been said. This is going way too far and smacks of all sorts of things to do with "making superior people by not letting the perceived inferior reproduce". The infamous Nazi T4 program anyone? Also, why is the homosexual question getting drawn into this? The Dutch gave rights to them because (a) they're not criminals and (b) oh yeah, they realized marriage in this sense was a matter of civil rights not religious rights (which maybe other countries should think about). Perun, LC and myself are also not religious rednecks from deep in the heart of Texas arguing against this, which are primarily the people who would be shouting against all the things Forostar listed, thus making the concerns we have about it more legitimate because oh, we weren't shouting "this time the Dutch have gone too far!" when abortion and euthanasia and all the rest were instituted. Let the Dutch government be steered by compassion towards these people as they were when they gave rights to the homosexuals. Everybody deserves another chance. And everybody has the unalienable right to reproduce.
Okay, this is getting out of hand. LC, Foro: Quit fighting. It's obvious that you two can't get on a common denominator, but that's no reason to make it personal. Neither of you has the moral superiority over the other, so quit acting like you did.
It's not like this debate is going to change anything or prevent or support this bill being passed, so getting into hypothetical arguments is just as legitimate as anything else here.
LC, your post was very insulting to Foro. You could have said the same thing in a more polite and respectful manner than you did. Instead, your post was so depreciatory that I am in all honesty disappointed of you.
Foro, I'm sorry about this:
I only just realised that your mentioning of "The Dutch go too far" was in fact a reply to LC's original post. I should have read the thread more attentively.
It's not like this debate is going to change anything or prevent or support this bill being passed, so getting into hypothetical arguments is just as legitimate as anything else here.
LC, your post was very insulting to Foro. You could have said the same thing in a more polite and respectful manner than you did. Instead, your post was so depreciatory that I am in all honesty disappointed of you.
Foro, I'm sorry about this:
I only just realised that your mentioning of "The Dutch go too far" was in fact a reply to LC's original post. I should have read the thread more attentively.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Natalie said:
Exactly...
As for the entire discussion here, I stand by what I said earlier regardless of whatever's been said. This is going way too far and smacks of all sorts of things to do with "making superior people by not letting the perceived inferior reproduce". The infamous Nazi T4 program anyone?
[/quote]
No need to bring the Nazis into this. EVERY first world nation in the early 20th century attempted this at one point or another. Hell, Churchill was a HUGE proponent. That's what makes this so shocking, it's kind of, "been there done that," and guess what? It didn't work then, why would it work now? In fact, that's not even the issue, regardless of effectiveness it is the rights it infringes upon that is the issue and the reason all those past programs were dropped and in some cases outlawed (if not all).
Also, why is the homosexual question getting drawn into this? The Dutch gave rights to them ...(b) oh yeah, they realized marriage in this sense was a matter of civil rights not religious rights (which maybe other countries should think about).
[/quote]
EXACTLY! I've been arguing that point here (in Arizona) for years.
Alright, Foro. I apologize for responding with such vitriol, and I definitely should have worded my first post better - it should have said "this political party seems to be taking it too far", regardless of the nationality of the party. So, please take my apologies here.
Okay, good enough then! 
I would like to respond to these points:
Well, we all *should* have rights to choose what occurs with our body. Some areas of the West are lacking in this, but others are certainly ahead in this norm. The Netherlands has been generally a leader on human rights, but we must remember that some areas are not - the USA is prime here. When I speak of rights, I generally speak of an ideal, not necessarily reality.
I think biologically we have an imperative to breed, and I think we could find some biologists to agree with the issue.
Most of the laws you quoted have been since repealed because they were wrong, aside from chemical castration, which is rather a new rule and hasn't had its time with the honeymoon period yet, if you understand my meaning. Like, the cases you quoted from Canada are all now illegal. Most countries that enforced sterilization have reversed that policy.
I would like to respond to these points:
Well, we all *should* have rights to choose what occurs with our body. Some areas of the West are lacking in this, but others are certainly ahead in this norm. The Netherlands has been generally a leader on human rights, but we must remember that some areas are not - the USA is prime here. When I speak of rights, I generally speak of an ideal, not necessarily reality.
I think biologically we have an imperative to breed, and I think we could find some biologists to agree with the issue.
Most of the laws you quoted have been since repealed because they were wrong, aside from chemical castration, which is rather a new rule and hasn't had its time with the honeymoon period yet, if you understand my meaning. Like, the cases you quoted from Canada are all now illegal. Most countries that enforced sterilization have reversed that policy.
Anomica
Trooper
Albie said:
Oh, I certainly don't agree to that either. As late as the mid 1900s mentally ill people were forcibly sterilized in Sweden, which caused a great scandal. My point is that regardless of what I personally believe, we can't stop people from becoming pregnant. But the right of the child is often overlooked.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Child abusers shouldn't have children any time soon, because they should be in prison. And in prison, they should be treated because they're clearly brain-damaged. When their prison time ends, again, specialists should conclude if they're rehabilitated or not. If not, women should report once every month for pregnancy test. If she's pregnant, force the abortion, until it's perfectly clear that she's fit to be a parent.
I see no problem with this solution. Yes, we should all have basic human rights, but if you break the laws, kiss those rights goodbye.
I see no problem with this solution. Yes, we should all have basic human rights, but if you break the laws, kiss those rights goodbye.