Posted on 08/04/2007 11:02:02 AM PDT by wagglebee
So are you telling me that the participants did not know they were receiving an operation that would prevent pregnancy?
I certainly consider it to be one.
You have a very twisted moral code. But I do find it very telling that you quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (who was not actually Chief Justice of the United States). Holmes was widely known for being a moral relativist and a great supported of eugenics as shown in his Buck v. Bell opinion which MANDATED sterilization of the mentally retarded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
Got it.
“War Against the Weak:Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race”
by Edwin Black
available through Amazon and many other dealers.
For the record,
If our leaders do not protect our right to life, by what principle do they defend lesser rights to liberty or to bear arms?
If they think the fundamental purpose of gov’t-
PROTECTING OUR LIVES
is a right that is reserved to the states to protect IF they so choose,
under what principle do you think they will protect your right to bear arms?
If you have no unalienable right to life,
then you have no unalienable right to defend your life.
I hardly think supporting one idea that just happens to be among the myriad under the eugenics umbrella amounts to total embracement of the entire package.
Forced sterilization is a PRIMARY component of eugenics.
Margaret Sanger would be proud!
A lot of this disgrace occurred while Sanger was alive and with her support.
You should come take a look at this thread.
Apparently you either have a warped definition of the word 'forced' or you think some people are legally required to accept public assistance and by extension the conditions attached to receiving it.
Wow, there was a neat group for you to join back in the 30s. Neat uniforms,a leader with charm and appeal and a whole other class of people to hate. Back then, you could not only make sure they are not able to have children, but you could put them in camps and gas them.
Sieg Heil Mien Furher......
You can judge a society by the way it takes care of its unforunates. America is the greatest land in the world because we help people like this out.
If the North Carolina was involved in this woman's sterilization, then it ought to be held accountable, even though it happened over 30 years ago.
Here're more details on state-sponsored sterilizations:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html
You are deliberately and dishonestly associating one idea you don't like with a whole host of ideas that are not endorsed by the post you responded to. It amounts to guilt by association and is a strawman argument. You can't refute the single idea as it has been proposed so you invent a larger position that was never claimed and attack that instead.
How pathetic.
In short, no, these women, as well as Indian women had no idea what was being done to them. They were just handed a piece of paper, told to sign it to receive treatment (sometimes under coercion), and then operated on. I study this kind of stuff for a living, so I know of what I speak...
Norplant is not sterilization. It is birth control. The military used to give it to female enlistees, I think. Maybe they still do.
I think it is a good idea. It’s not permanent. It wears off in a few years. A female soldier that is taken captive and raped does not want to end up pregnant. She also does not want the hassle of the monthly cycle coming around when trying to fight for her life.
Excuse me? We have someone advocating forced sterilization and you think it is wrong to bring up the connection to Hitler?
You keep using the word ‘forced’. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
No, YOU don’t.
http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID=80921&sID=4
In short, no, these women, as well as Indian women had no idea what was being done to them. They were just handed a piece of paper, told to sign it to receive treatment (sometimes under coercion), and then operated on. I study this kind of stuff for a living, so I know of what I speak...
I do not doubt that there have been programs that deceived and/or forced sterilization. However, do you have information that shows this to be so in the specific case in this article - keeping in mind Ms. English herself acknowledges that she volunteered, knew it was an operation, and knew it would make her unable to get pregnant?
Any other program you can cite, while tragic and wrong, is entirely irrelevant to Ms. English's case.
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.