Replies

To me, there is a big difference between abortion and forced sterilization.

Yes, one is barbaric and terminates a life, while the other is barbaric and eliminates all possibility of life.

In the latter case, as decided by a judge or jury, it is deprivation of a liberty, true, but it is not killing anybody.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

It kills future generations.

There really are people out there who should not have kids.

Sounds familiar:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies"

Some have simple genetic problems. (my wife deals with them in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit) but there really are people out there bearing kids with no intention of caring for them and every intention of continuing behavior during pregnancy guaranteed to produce a kid with big and lifelong problems that fall on everyone and deprive other kids of resources they do need, and they do it repeatedly. Then there are the sickos: for example, I do know of cases in which two people with cystic fibrosis got married and decided to have kids so that they could ‘share’ the experience of raising kids with CF.

Again, very familiar:

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
-- Margaret Sanger

To me, this kind of selfishness, these kinds of pregnancies, are akin to child abuse, never mind the raiding of the public treasury for personal pleasure for which a remedy, albeit unpleasant, exists.

I see, they're stealing money from the "collective" is that right? Again, not a new idea, just a twisted and barbaric one.

“This person suffering from hereditary defects

costs the people 60,000 Reichmarks during his lifetime.

People, that is your money. Read ‘New People’.”

Under the circumstances, all of the options are unpleasant and non-ideal. To me, forced sterilization with appropriate due process of law is the least damaging.

So, you believe that the Constitution allows for taking life and liberty WITHOUT ANY CRIME BEING COMMITTED so long as there is due process? What twisted group did you get this idea from?

The Green Party’s main goal is to make the entire planet green again as in no people. Green products are nothing compared to their stated goals of planetary genocide. Read their platform. People aren’t in it except they are of course.

So, you believe that the Constitution allows for taking life and liberty WITHOUT ANY CRIME BEING COMMITTED so long as there is due process?

Thank you for your shrill, knee-jerk, arrogant, condescending, and twisted representation of what I wrote. I said it would be pursuant to a court. That means there had been a crime perpetrated against another person. Who? The baby that person had gestated while taking dangerous drugs or knowingly inflicting a fatal disease and producing a child for the purposes of sharing suffering or without regard to sufffering. That is a crime against the child AND the people who pay for the consequences. Considering the magnitude, that perpetrator should be imprisoned. I am suggesting instead that he or she should be tried, and if found guilty, sterilized. There is no violation of due process suggested here. You have been a jerk.

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

Dear WaggleBee’

Life is an IQ test. Note China has not sanctioned reproduction of mental deficients for many generations.

Note also that the Chinese also have a higher average IQ than Americans, and that was before we started importing low IQ Latrinos and subsidizing reproduction of the urban blacks dwelling in the shallow end of the IQ pool.

‘Tis a quandry - what is the value of a Stephan Hawking versus a population of ‘droolers’? Questions, questikons.

Most perplexing question: Who decides - government with subsidies or parents?