Skip to comments.
Facing the Past: New generations learn about shameful forced sterilizations
Winston-Salem Journal ^
| 8/30/07
| Patrick Wilson
Posted on 09/02/2007 11:08:32 AM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: perseid 67
You are harsh and cruel to the not so poor as to be able to work and pay taxes.
What choice do you have to not support uncontrolled breeding? They have the choice to not procreate.
My previous post. I am not for forced sterilization without being able to have a progeny.
Reciprocally why should strangers be FORCED to support those with a lack of self control of their reproductive actions?
21
posted on
09/02/2007 2:18:59 PM PDT
by
rawcatslyentist
(Did you know that everyday mexican gays sneak into this country and unplug our brain dead ladies HJS)
To: perseid 67
The wards of state are ALREADY nanniefied. Why do you think they vote D? It’s still a plantation. The work has gotten a lot easier though. Just pull a voting lever every few years. The rest of the time who cares about their conditions. So long as they make more D voters.
22
posted on
09/02/2007 2:24:59 PM PDT
by
rawcatslyentist
(Did you know that everyday mexican gays sneak into this country and unplug our brain dead ladies HJS)
To: wagglebee
—nope—I’d just make permanent sterilization a prerequisite for welfare of any sort-—
23
posted on
09/02/2007 2:36:40 PM PDT
by
rellimpank
(-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: rawcatslyentist
Why can’t you acknowledge that not all people who are dependent on government health care are irresponsible?
You must be in denial.
It is also strange that you trust the government so much.
24
posted on
09/02/2007 2:40:18 PM PDT
by
perseid 67
(God is great!)
To: rawcatslyentist
Is it better to alter people surgically or to return to a debtors' prison system where those who refuse to take care of their own needs and own children lose their freedom to continue living irresponsibly? Releasing someone from a debtors' prison when he/she reforms his ways is simpler than putting that person in a situation where he/she must undergo another surgery.
Bill
25
posted on
09/02/2007 2:46:54 PM PDT
by
WFTR
(Liberty isn't for cowards)
To: perseid 67
Not all dependents are irresponsible. Taxpayers are the ones responsible.
I trust the govt about as far as I can spit a rat.
De Nile is a river in Afreeka. Never been there they tell me its nice.
Hmmm debtors prison VS taxpayers free ride vs sterilization...... tough call. Depends on if your a freeloader, or a taxpayer.
Once again, society is held together by a small modicum of socialism. Unfortunately socialism is like tooth decay. A little goes the wrong way!
26
posted on
09/02/2007 3:52:22 PM PDT
by
rawcatslyentist
(Did you know that everyday mexican gays sneak into this country and unplug our brain dead ladies HJS)
To: wagglebee
Forced sterilization is out of the question.
Women on public assistance could be paid a $1,000 bonus and given a free procedure.
This would help reduce poverty on a voluntary basis.
To: BenLurkin
Men who have fifty children and take care of none of them may be more dangerous than five welfare mothers. A reversible procedure might not be so bad. Still after reading this article, I would advise people not trust the government. The are to many zero population people.
Zero population is just plain nuts(not that you believe in such stuff) we must at least reproduce enough people to keep our economy and culture afloat. I’m sentimental I love all children even poor children. My father was once a poor child. He did well for himself.
28
posted on
09/02/2007 4:06:51 PM PDT
by
perseid 67
(God is great!)
To: perseid 67
Sterilizations for men at risk for fathering illegitimate children could also be performed at no cost and with a cash bonus incentive.
To: BenLurkin
All men are at risk for having illegitimate children unless they have a moral backbone. I have to admit ,even though I am Catholic, when I hear of men who have numerous illegitimate children ,I think there should be a law against such nonsense. I would put them in jail. Debtors prison would not be a bad place for those rolling stones.
30
posted on
09/02/2007 4:23:51 PM PDT
by
perseid 67
(God is great!)
To: perseid 67
Ah okay now I see what you were getting at -- forced imprisonment over forced sterilization.
Would you be imprisoning the women as well who continue to breed like rabbits expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab?
31
posted on
09/02/2007 9:42:40 PM PDT
by
expatguy
(Support Conservative Blogging - "An American Expat in Southeast Asia")
To: expatguy
32
posted on
09/02/2007 10:01:24 PM PDT
by
Turret Gunner A20
(If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier.)
To: wagglebee
33
posted on
09/03/2007 3:49:15 AM PDT
by
8mmMauser
(Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
To: expatguy
This idea was tried by the Catholic church in the Magdalene Laundries. While the Magdalene laundries were not as Draconian as what has been done to poor women deemed unfit to reproduce in this country, the system was corrupted. Girls and women who were not at risk for having illegitimate children were imprisoned on the word of busy bodies. I’m afraid the Virgin Mary would have been at risk for imprisonment.
Strangely enough the same people who want breeding licenses always become infuriated at the treatment of the Magdalene laundresses. Maybe you should read up on them.
This is not an anti Catholic screed. I know perfectly well that poor women were treated worse in this country. Not only were they sterilized , they were imprisoned in insane asylums. Where no doubt ,they were subject to much worse abuse than the Catholic laundries imposed on their wards.
34
posted on
09/03/2007 8:34:20 AM PDT
by
perseid 67
(God is great!)
To: rawcatslyentist
It would be a bad idea to sterilize poor people. First off poor people are the only ones who are subject to natural law . The poor adapt and become stronger whereas the rich become weaker because they do not need to adapt to the environment. The second reason it would be a stupid idea is because the anger of a barren woman is unending. The rich slobs who come up with these ideas would need many expensive high security prisons to protect themselves from the angry mutilated men and women who would work day and to avenge themselves.
35
posted on
09/03/2007 10:37:09 AM PDT
by
perseid 67
(God is great!)
To: rawcatslyentist
I think you’re on the wrong website, Stormfront is over there.
36
posted on
09/03/2007 10:39:28 AM PDT
by
darkangel82
(Socialism is NOT an American value.)
To: perseid 67; darkangel82
>"poor people are the only ones who are subject to natural law . The poor adapt and become stronger whereas the rich become weaker because they do not need to adapt to the environment." Tell that to Ted Kennedy's liver. LOL
Cerially, where do we draw the line? The Chinese and Indians are about to have big problems on their hands. Their overpopulation and forced abortions/sterilizations, have produced an abundance of male only population. Their future doesn't look too bright.
Conversely how many more nanny state dependent Dim voters are we willing to pay to bring into this nation? How many till our nation becomes a third world of overpopulated starving uneducated masses? Is that what you want for this nation?
Something needs to be done. The things done in the past, recent and long ago were not the right things to do. However at this rate a lot of our country will be reduced to Sao Paulo/West Bank garbage living.
DA182, Thanks for the rational discussion. Your insinuation that I am a Nazi was quite ludicrous. Do you want our nation to become a nanny welfare state??? Do you????
37
posted on
09/03/2007 6:27:11 PM PDT
by
rawcatslyentist
(Did you know that everyday mexican gays sneak into this country and unplug our brain dead ladies HJS)
To: rawcatslyentist
You make a case against government intervention in the control fertility when you bring up the Communist Chinese. As for the East Indians, they chose to not have daughters. In a sense you are like both the communists and the East Indians. You dislike poor babies the way the East Indians dislike female babies. You can’t see how poor people contribute to the vibrancy of our culture. You can’t connect the decline of our culture with all the abortion we have allowed particularly among poor people. Like the communist Chinese you think allowing authority figures control of our reproduction is the answer.
You claim your main beef is with health care. Doctors have said that they can’t profit because of insurance costs. We should go back to the health care system we had at the turn of the century before we sacrifice the reproductive abilities of poor people. You don’t get it a baby is a gift from God not to be taken lightly.
38
posted on
09/03/2007 7:03:24 PM PDT
by
perseid 67
(God is great!)
To: wagglebee
Forced sterilization is almost always indefensible.
However, the current hearings in NC revolve about two things: promises of money for the victims and the benefit of continued polarization of the races and classes for the Democrat party.
Please remember that we are talking about events that took place half a century ago. I remember when segregation was good and killing the unborn was bad. It hasn't been that long ago that Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person, and women couldn't vote or own property.
Let's correct our mistakes, pick ourselves up, and get this country moving in the right direction again!
39
posted on
06/23/2011 11:37:41 AM PDT
by
July4
(Remember the price paid for your freedom.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson