Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Permanent birth control

I would assume the same should be true for married males, as well, Harv3? That is, a married man who fathers a child he can't support, whether with his wife or with someone else, should receive the same offer?

And I am further curious: what happens if the parent who has been made this offer, rejects it? Farms the child out to grandma and continues on his/her merry way?

Reading this thread has given me an education in a part of history I was only partially knowledgeable about. Thank you, I think.

In regards to male sterilization, it gives a whole new meaning to the expression "Off with their heads!"

I don't advocate either, EmmaG.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Sorry, issodhos.

Great question and equally good solution Mellow - sterilization for men who fail to be financially responsible for their offspring.

I've never considered this aspect of the forced sterilization - fair is fair.

Yeah if it is good enough for our Chinese owners it is good enough for their new subjects, Americans, right?

Actually, I did include the "famous quote", a knight. And I am shocked! Shocked, I say, shocked, that eugenics would appeal to racists and xenophobes! And I am even more shocked, shocked, I say, that you would imply that progressivism was not heavily laced with racism, as well. And I did not lay the "whole blame" at the feet of progressives - I simply stated, perhaps with a tinge of hyperbole, that eugenics was all the rage with them.

And, finally, I am a bit surprised that the ol' "scientific theory of the day" excuse for pseudo-science would be injected into the conversation.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. "less than truthful"? I was hardly engaged in writing a thesis, a knight.;-)

Sorry to play catch-up, but there it is:

RICK wrote:
Rick - I think you know that this is not my idea or solution. My post was a request for clarification from someone else's statement. I find the whole idea reprehensible (at best) and would very much appreciate your not attributing it to me, even in jest.

For those of you involved in the eugenics discussion: Eugenics, as I understand it, has to do with using various techniques, including sterilization, for genetic or pseudo-genetic purposes, to "improve the breed." Genetics is not involved in Harv3's proposal - it is based primarily on economics. It might also be seen as punishment for those living in poverty without access to contraception, for young people with bad judgment, or those for whom contraception has failed.

Speaking as the thread originator, not as a moderator, I would appreciate it if you would take the eugenics portion of your discussion to another thread, as I think it's a distraction from the main topic.

Hal3 agreed with my earlier statement that perhaps the thread should be shut down. Hal3, you proposed this theory in the middle of another thread. Rather than shut you down, I added this thread so that you could discuss your subject without distracting the other conversation. So far you have chosen not to do so.

However, other people have now joined in and I intend to let the thread run its course so long as it stays close to your original topic. (Late note: You are, of course, and as always, free not to participate.)

I wasn't jesting Mellow - guys who father and fail at their financial responsibility to care for their offspring ought to be sterilized, IMHO. That's it - no more kids for you buddy.

Snip. Snip.