forced sterilization

[Spherical Time]

I too feel that we should take resposibility for the future, however we cannot do it by advocating sinful behavior. There is nothing wrong with improving crop yield, but we must also strive to reduce political problems which contribute greatly to starvation. Expecting poor people to not reproduce by using artificial birth control or being sterilized because they are poor is a eugenic attitude. You say that you are not a eugenicist but many people are.

You know a lot of eugenicists? Point to one. Or five. How many are there in the government?

Also, endorsing birth control does not mean that someone supports eugenics. Granted, forcibly sterilizing them is, but the two issues are completely separate. I've already pointed out that I do not endorse forcible sterilization.

Finally, I disagree. The best way to take responsibility for the future is to advocate, endorse, support and encourage behavior that you seem to think is sinful. Granted, I don't think it's sinful, but I also don't really agree with your concept of sin, either.

Why would you disagree ith God? God knows more than you.

Probably because he doesn't fear God. We're out there, you know. We don't think that God is always correct, and when you actually look at His behavior He's done reprehensible things and not answered for them.

Just a quick question, can you prove that God knows more than me? Can you ask him to call me so that he can answer some basic questions? He should have my cell phone number, and he should also know when a good time to call is.

 

[Tangnefedd]

All kids should be taught about birth control, before they reach puberty. Some schools in the UK supply free condoms to encourage the kids to use them. Some might say this encourages the kids to have sex, but like it, or not, most are having it anyway way under the legal age of 16! The majority will have an abortion if they get pregnant, so prevention is better imo.

 

[Ledifni]

The original thread is about people who might not care for their future children properly, however the topic of starvation was brought up and that is when poor people became part of the thread.

But the topic that "poor people shouldn't be allowed to procreate" has never come up in this thread. Saying that people who can't feed their children shouldn't have them isn't the same as saying that poor people in general shouldn't have kids. But when I see a starving mother surrounded by five starving, potbellied children in some third-world country, I don't think, "Oh, how wonderful that God gave her children even though she's too poor to feed them!" Rather, I think, "How sad that she had so many children that now they all starve, slowly and painfully. If she had had only one or two, perhaps they could all live to adulthood."

Of course children are entitled to proper care, but God is still the author of life. All children, all people, are subject to illnes, injury and death. Who are we to predetermine that some of these people do not have a right to exist?

Please, Monica, you're avoiding the point. Yes, we're all subject to illness, injury, and death. But a child who wakes up every morning to clean clothes and a healthy breakfast is far less subject to these things than a child who wakes up every morning to the same threadbare rags and hopes to find a bite or two to eat by suppertime so he/she won't starve to death that day. Don't pretend there isn't any difference.

 

[Ledifni]

The teachings are from God, not the pope. The pope is God's servant.

So God sends different teachings every century? Why would he do that?

 

[Monica02]

So God sends different teachings every century? Why would he do that?

No, God's Truth is the Truth, no matter what century.

 

[Monica02]

But the topic that "poor people shouldn't be allowed to procreate" has never come up in this thread. Saying that people who can't feed their children shouldn't have them isn't the same as saying that poor people in general shouldn't have kids. But when I see a starving mother surrounded by five starving, potbellied children in some third-world country, I don't think, "Oh, how wonderful that God gave her children even though she's too poor to feed them!" Rather, I think, "How sad that she had so many children that now they all starve, slowly and painfully. If she had had only one or two, perhaps they could all live to adulthood."

What you think is not necessarily correct. Perhaps you should think more along the lines of the Church's teaching and understand that God is the author of life and we should strive to take care of all of His Children, not just the ones we deem valuable.



Please, Monica, you're avoiding the point. Yes, we're all subject to illness, injury, and death. But a child who wakes up every morning to clean clothes and a healthy breakfast is far less subject to these things than a child who wakes up every morning to the same threadbare rags and hopes to find a bite or two to eat by suppertime so he/she won't starve to death that day. Don't pretend there isn't any difference.

There is a difference but not one that would advocate sinning in an effort to solve a problem that has other, more moral solutions. Artificial birth control is a big lie that is being used to suck well meaning people like you into the culture of death without you even realizing it. Satan cannot stand the fact that he cannot create life and so he tricks people into his web of deceit.

 

[Plan 9]

Our old pal Eugenics is making a comeback, for make no mistake: Carrie Buck was not forcibly sterilized because she was mentally slow. She was sterilized because her sexual morality might not have met society's lofty standards.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/eugenics/
Recommended reading:
Gould, Stephen J. The Flamingo's Smile--"Carrie Buck’s Daughter" (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1985)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."~George Santayana

 

[Lycaenidae]

There is a difference but not one that would advocate sinning in an effort to solve a problem that has other, more moral solutions. Artificial birth control is a big lie that is being used to suck well meaning people like you into the culture of death without you even realizing it. Satan cannot stand the fact that he cannot create life and so he tricks people into his web of deceit.

Are you for real?

 

[Jetgirl]

Are you for real?

The scary thing is that I know people IRL that actually talk like that.

I have no idea whether they actually believe it or are just putting me on.

 

[AtheistPerson]

I want some opinions on a situation I am currently dealing with. Iam a foster parent who adopted 1 of 5 siblings from foster care. After giving up thier rights to 5 children the parents started over again they had a baby girl two years after losing the 5. She had another child in May and it is rummored that she is pregnant again. These children are not in the system yet but it is just a matter of time. When is it time to say enough is enough and you cannot continue to bring children into the world that you are not going to care for.

I think this is when abortion steps into the picture. Not existing is better than suffering with poverty every day if you ask me... its not about life, its about the welfare of our people.

 

[AtheistPerson]

There is a difference but not one that would advocate sinning in an effort to solve a problem that has other, more moral solutions. Artificial birth control is a big lie that is being used to suck well meaning people like you into the culture of death without you even realizing it. Satan cannot stand the fact that he cannot create life and so he tricks people into his web of deceit.

Yes birth contol pills cause is as unnatural as abortion. Its a matter of what stage in development you are...

1. Sex
2. Birth Control
3. or Abortion

If the pills do not work, that is when abortion is usually taken place. If you spare a childs life they will forever walk this earth with the knowledge of an "accident child" or a "******* child" like me...

 

[Plan 9]

You know a lot of eugenicists? Point to one. Or five. How many are there in the government?

Also, endorsing birth control does not mean that someone supports eugenics. Granted, forcibly sterilizing them is, but the two issues are completely separate. I've already pointed out that I do not endorse forcible sterilization.

EEK! I missed this post somehow before writing mine. I'd just like to say that I meant mine to apply to forcible sterilization only and not to voluntary birth control. They are indeed completely separate issues!
If I've inadvertantly offended Lycaenidae, or any other scientist, I sincerely apologize.
Eugenics is "junk science", of course we have no eugenicists working for the U.S. government, although this doesn't appear to be true of other countries and their officials can present what may sound like persuasive arguments to those of us who aren't well read in history or science.
That's why I made the post I did, and well, erm...oh, arrgh

 

[morningstar2651]

No need to force her -- she'll probably earn herself a Darwin award sooner or later.

 

[firestar]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with medically sterilizing people who have shown that they can't take care of a child due to past neglect and abuse. It's not necessary to have children it's a privelege which a whole lot of people abuse. Why should children suffer because the parents suck? In my opinion some people should not be allowed to procreate.

 

[Plan 9]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with medically sterilizing people who have shown that they can't take care of a child due to past neglect and abuse. It's not necessary to have children it's a privelege which a whole lot of people abuse. Why should children suffer because the parents suck? In my opinion some people should not be allowed to procreate.

Am I correct in thinking that you've never, as a parent, found yourself falsely accused of child abuse and suffered the consequences that the government can now arbitrarily visit upon you?
Do you really want the government to decide if you're a fit enough mother to be permitted to bear children?
The Canadian government must really rock, because many of us here don't trust the U.S. Postal service to deliver our packages.

When our goverment had that much power before, they abused it to such a degree that all the old U.S. forced sterilization laws have finally been repealed, but Carrie Buck and her husband died childless just the same, all because of the supposed sins of her mother and grandmother, not theirs.

Some sites regarding Canada's record:
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/723/master4.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/hist/eugenics1.htm
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/clarke-institute.html
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/dowbigg.htm
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/beatfetus.html


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."~George Santayana

 

[Lycaenidae]

EEK! I missed this post somehow before writing mine. I'd just like to say that I meant mine to apply to forcible sterilization only and not to voluntary birth control. They are indeed completely separate issues!
If I've inadvertantly offended Lycaenidae, or any other scientist, I sincerely apologize.
Eugenics is "junk science", of course we have no eugenicists working for the U.S. government, although this doesn't appear to be true of other countries and their officials can present what may sound like persuasive arguments to those of us who aren't well read in history or science.
That's why I made the post I did, and well, erm...oh, arrgh

I'm not offended. No worries

 

[skipper]

This post has was originally about people whom are known child abusers, they are not starving they are not poverty stricken. They continue to have children they do not take care of, not because they don't have the resources or are limited in intelligence. If you disagree with forced sterilization for these people what would you recommend. Taking the children at birth would not stop them they would just move to another state to have the children. There actions are criminal but short of putting these people behind bars which usually doesn't happen.The crime of child abuse is rarely prosocuted, and when it is the penalty is not nearly stiff enough they come out of jail and have more children. So what do you recommend if it is not a sin to put a person to death for murder what should be the punishment for murdering a childs soul and condemming them to a life of emotion pain.

 

[Monica02]

Are you for real?

I am for real and so is the devil. Artificial birth control and sterilization is bad news - Satan is smiling everytime one of God's children falls for his tricks.

So many people see nothing wrong with interfering in the creation of life. People should strive to take care of all of God's children, not strive to stop their creation.

 

[Tangnefedd]

I am for real and so is the devil. Artificial birth control and sterilization is bad news - Satan is smiling everytime one of God's children falls for his tricks.

So many people see nothing wrong with interfering in the creation of life. People should strive to take care of all of God's children, not strive to stop their creation.

Birth control and sterilisation, when you want no more children, is sensible and of course it isn't wrong. If it prevents abortion or children being brought into families who don't want them, or haven't the means to care for them then surely it is good?

We interfere with nature all the time, when we take an appendix out, or have a heart transplant. Are you saying that we should be back in the stone age?

 

[Plan 9]

I'm not offended. No worries

What a relief! Thank you.