Posted on 02/09/2005 12:33:39 PM PST by Kennesaw
Funny thing. The founder of Planned Parenthood had the same idea. Enjoy your company.
Margaret Sanger would be proud of you.
Mutilation is cruel and unusual punishment.
No, she earned death. No one earns mutilation.
I think you are right. Death is more appropriate.
Mutilation is cruel and unusual punishment."
Trust me Maggie wouldn't like me very much. If it doesn't trouble your would view too much, I was simply quoting the law, not taking sides. I too am no fan of letting this woman walk no matter what surgery she has had but your question was whether or not it was legal to order her sterilization and it is if she accepts the deal.
Rest assured that if forced sterilization were again to rise before the Supreme Court it would be found unConstitutional. Nazi-minded legislators know this and therefore do not push for compulsory sterilization.
Ah, so you are obsessed with Hitler's eugenics policies. In retrospect, that's unsurprising.
Anti-Semitism did not start with the 3rd Reich either, nor did the euthanization of handicapped children nor did the concentration camp. Yet, like compulsory sterilization of criminals, the murder of the handicapped, and concentration camps anti-Semitism is strongly associated with the Nazi regime.
You are living with an 18th century perspective--there are many forms of sterilization (temp and more permenent) that were unavailable to the past, but most certainly would have been employed if they were practical.
No, I'm living with a first century, NT perspective. It's amusing that a poster on a conservative website would think that a viewpoint's traditionalism was sufficient to condemn it.
No, the "right" to have children is fiction, as is eating. No work=no eat, you do not have a right to food
How do you justify the feeding of infants, or the severely retarded or the infirm elderly? They can't work. Your viewpoint seems to be more and more as I suspected.
just as you do not have a right to dump children you can't care for on the rest of us; just as society can intervene between a woman and her urge to procreate if she has a history of abusing/murdering her offspring.
Again, if she is a murderer, execute her. There's no need to mutilate a person.
Sterilization is not "torture" any more than menopause is
What a silly, uneducated statement. If someone slips, falls and breaks both their legs, it's not torture. If someone has their legs intentionally broken by someone else in a methodical calculating fashion, it is torture. Menopause is a natural occurrence. Forced sterilization is mutilative torture.
there are circumstances that warant preventing some women from having babies.
Oh, I'm sure there are circumstances aplenty in the mind of a eugenicist with a whole section of his personal library devoted to Hitler. Criminal records first, surely. Then not finishing high school will be justification enough. Then being Jewish or black or Mexican is next . . . you know, whatever circumstances seem correct to the godlike Aryan in charge at the time.
What I think? It's what I know.
150 years ago it was perfectly legal to own a human being.
What next - will we offer thieves a choice between having a hand cut off or jail time?
If she murdered a child she belongs in prison or on the gallows.
And why would I want this woman, sterilized or not, running around free in the streets near my children as a result of some deal with a sadistic judge who likes to play God?
Drat! I missed # 88!
That is what I get for leaving to erm,
have a life :)
I'm 95% sure #88 was to you, so it's probably still preserved on your comments page. :D
Read this precious contribution:
Enjoy the first century and your backwoods biblical humbug. I'll pass, thanks. I left the Cotton Mather vision of America long ago, just as I left the idiotic version of conservatism as well. If feels like a dumbed down, cribbed Kirk but with Billy Sunday stirred in for flavor. You are clearly part of the abortion absolutists who make out anyone who disagrees with you to be allied with the Nazis. That should have been my first clue: the ease with which you pin the Nazi label on your interlocutors. Thankfully, you will lose every election you bother to contest. And I do believe that you would be more comfortable executing a woman (and considering it more humane, even) than making her take Norplant. Sterilization is torture, but execution is justice. Thank God, your cult doesn't have much influence.
Look at the amusing prejudices: "backwoods biblical humbug" - in other words, only people from a rural setting take Scripture seriously, and people from rural areas are stupid and superstitious. That's an interesting position for a "conservative."
"I left the Cotton Mather vision of America long ago, just as I left the idiotic version of conservatism as well. If feels like a dumbed down, cribbed Kirk but with Billy Sunday stirred in for flavor." - In other words, the aptly named antoninartaud believes that an intellectual giant like Cotton Mather is "idiotic, dumbed-down" etc. While I'm flattered to be compared to Mather, as a Roman Catholic I just don't see the likeness.
Apparently the only truly intelligent thinkers are Alfred Rosenberg and Margaret Sanger and whoever happens to be speaking at the local NARAL event.
I wonder who this individual considers a non-idiotic conservative - presumably Howard Dean.
"Thankfully, you will lose every election you bother to contest." Apparently this person slept through the last election.
"You are clearly part of the abortion absolutists who make out anyone who disagrees with you to be allied with the Nazis." LOL! To the contrary - those of us who defend the right of innocent children to life are more sinned against than sinning in this regard.
This individual reveals to me that he has an obssessive interest in Nazism that fills entire shelves of his personal library, he spouts out rhetoric like "The State has the obligation to sterilize unfit individuals" etc. and then gets annoyed when his obsession with Nazism and worship of the Almighty State is taken notice of.
"I do believe that you would be more comfortable executing a woman (and considering it more humane, even) than making her take Norplant. Sterilization is torture, but execution is justice. Thank God, your cult doesn't have much influence." Translation: execution is "inhumane" but mutilating people and murdering unborn children is not. Again, antoninartaud, we've heard this all before. In your moral universe it's all well and good to murder innocent children on a personal whim and morally repugnant to execute the guilty through legal means, yet it's okay to mutilate them, though.
The war on human dignity continues apace. Do me a favor and stop calling national socialism "conservativism", antoninartaud. You're no conservative anymore than your namesake. And I'll point out that your namesake was best known for inventing what he called the "Theater of Cruelty", for being a violent, raving lunatic whose last "literary" work was an hour long one man radioplay in 1948 filled with obscene language, Nazi-sympathizing remarks, a long anti-American tirade and a long blasphemous tirade against Christianity.
At least you practice truth in advertising. You are the spitting image of your chosen mentor.
The timing seems about right.
And the rhetoric is almost identical.
It would help if people who want to write could spend a bit of time reading, carefully
Read my reply carefully. I never ascribed any repugnant views to you.
This is a very interesting use of semantics in light of your condemnation of "abortion absolutists". Doesn't the italicized quote above represent exactly what abortion is? You say that "you do not have a right to dump children" (an absolutist proposition, btw) but isn't that exactly what mothers who contract with abortionists to butcher their offspring do?
Further, when you state that some "would be more comfortable executing a woman (and considering it more humane, even) than making her take Norplant. [']Sterilization is torture, but execution is justice['] " [single quote emphasis mine to indicate your summation of wideawake's postition] , do you mean to imply that the execution of the guilty is not justice and that conversely the execution of an innocent offspring of mother and father by an abortionist is justice?
Such incoherence is astounding.
Cordially,
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.