Posted on 12/10/2011 5:45:05 AM PST by Perdogg
Charles Holt, 62, spreads a cache of vintage government records across his trailer floor. They are the stark facts of his state-ordered sterilization.
The reports begin when he was barely a teenager, fighting at school and masturbating openly. A social worker wrote that he and his parents were of “rather low mentality.” Mr. Holt was sent to a state home for people with mental and emotional problems. In 1968, when he was ready to get out and start life as an adult, the Eugenics Board of North Carolina ruled that he should first have a vasectomy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Not every female has good motherhood opportunity, potential or inclination”.
What you chose may be good for you. However, YOU chose this. No government group or state board of “undesirable eliminators” chose for you. You weren’t “selected for sterilization” based on race, religion, I.Q., family history, medical predispositions etc... “Women who love being mothers don’t seem to understand or accept that fact”.... I do. I understand that motherhood/fatherhood isn’t for everyone. However, that decision should be made by the individual NOT by another group.
“A more ethical solution is to require Norplant or an IUD immediately placed in any woman of child bearing age and teenaged female dependents when she seeks any food stamps, welfare or Section 8 housing. If you cannot support the children you have, you cannot be allowed to have more.
If you get off the welfare teat, the implant comes out. No abortions, no permanent sterilizations, no more “I can’t work because I just had another baby”.”
You gotta have sex with me. Even if you get preggers, the state will just give you contraceptives, and support you. What’s the downside?
Great policy, btw.
It’s really Machiavellian, the way the left is going about these things in the wake of having the curtain pulled back on them during the Nazi era. Now, it’s all subterfuge, beneath the radar, say one thing and do another. Trying to collapse the hated existing order with elaborate and costly accomodation regardless of logic or consequence and turning to kind euphemisms in order to create the impression of actual support for those with physical handicap, while all the while advocating the abortion of infants with any indication of those same handicaps.
Yes, they want to destroy people with limitations, but are restrained by public opinion. That opinion is being successfully shaped, though. We’re witnessing the extension of this nihilist philosophy, from abortion to euthanasia, from euthanasia to withholding medical care from the aged, and food from the incapacitated. The day is coming when political and religious belief will be in the crosshairs as well. It certainly has been in the not-so-distant past.
Well the religious will get the crosshairs for standing up to the state and for the weak and the helpless, because the left knows that if we rely on God, then we don’t rely on them.
I remember growing up, how unusual it was that I was even schooled, because the thinking at the time was that I was better off not being educated. My mother had to fight for years just to get me admitted.
Now I’m not sure she made the right decision, but I am thankful for my education. I think I would have done better at home, but my sacrifice helped my brothers and proved that folks with disability could be integrated successfully into the classroom.
But I won’t say that it wasn’t a struggle. I think they only time I was ever HAPPY was when I was in grade 11 and 12, when I finally got taken out of the regular folks and put in the equivalent of advanced placement. They said they would consider anyone based on merit. This was a huge way out for me.
This view, however, is becoming more prevalent as time goes on. I’m seeing increased hostility towards anyone ‘rising above their station’. People are happy with the disabled folks stuck in a little box off to the corner. They are LESS happy seeing one use his God-given talents to help other people in a very visible fashion.
The Nazis actually admired the American version and mainstreamed it.
Some history here.
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/index.html#contents
http://home.earthlink.net/~thetabus/eugenics/eutt-6.htm
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/unwanted.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v_Bell
I've met several at the door while wearing a well-filled shoulder holster -- and no jacket.
For undesirable suitors, that was usually the last visit. The "winners" greeted me with. "Hey, is that a H-K?" '-)
They did not have the intellectual capacity to understand the procedure. I would suggest you read all of the article to se that they were threatened, were you?
There are a multitude of REAL Issues/Problems related to this subject, some of which are:
(1) irresponsible behavior by certain people leading to unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies tends to be passed on to their offspring, thereby creating even more unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies
(2) not having an inverse relationship between number of unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies and public provided financial support nor any sort of serious prevention procedures has created a whole sub-culture of baby factories for $$$ (”welfare”) which is promoted by those well meaning but mentally deficient liberals who have legislated increasing benefits vs number of unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies (ie “reach the threshold of 3 kids and we’ll upgrade your housing allowance from a two bedroom apartment to a three bedroom house”).
(3) I fail to understand how reproducing is a fundamental human right, if it is going to infringe seriously on others. If a person has no obvious ability, (mentally, morally or financially), to successfully create a productive, contributing member of our society, who will NOT need assistance from the rest of us for their entire life, then why should we NOT have the ability to withhold that activity for the sake of us all?
There was a time when frivolous procreation was frowned upon and even discouraged. The great Liberal movement of the 20th century eliminated those restrictions and now we live in a society that freely kills millions of human beings annually.
Isn’t it a FAR better thing to PREVENT unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable pregnancies than it is to kill millions of unplanned/unwanted/unsupportable HUMAN BEINGS?
We're already doing that. I prefer to prevent unwanted uncared for fertilizations BEFORE they happen
Why bother? Isn’t the outcome the same?
“then why should we NOT have the ability to withhold that activity for the sake of us all?”
Denying one fundamental right, is no different from tearing at the rest. You can’t grind them so fine, that it is ok to reject the children you may have, and not ok to reject the ones that you do.
We cannot strip the decision from the hands of the irresponsible, any more than we can cripple the responsible.
The problem, as you note, is not with procreation, which brings about children that are a blessing to society, the problem is welfare.
Why should we sterilize those on welfare, when we can simply cut them off?
That logic can be used for all sorts of nefarious and evil justifications...the road to hell is lined with this type of thinking...
The real answer is to stop giving people incentives to pump out babies by giving them government welfare...
Also you clump two different concepts into one premise.....forced government sterilization does not necessary mean fewer abortions
I am not promoting “forced sterilization”. HOWEVER, forced birth control as a condition to receive public assistance funding is another matter. One certifies that they are supposedly looking for a job in order to collect unemployment, must pass tests in order to engage in a variety of income producing activities or drive a car.
And, even forced permanent birth control isn't off the table, in my opinion. I recently saw an article, tracing the offspring of one well know criminal from a couple of generations ago. The amount of damage and mayhem those offspring have wrought upon the rest of us is staggering.
The hypocrisy of Liberalism is evident here as in most issues.
It is conventional wisdom that "gayness" is a genetic condition and the gay person is immune to changing. Yet, it is NOT acceptable that pedophiles are similarly wired genetically, criminals are not genetically programmed and liberals are mentally challenged, all due to genetic issues which are unchangeable and permanent. Without some sort of control, we have the mongrel pot we have today: >multiple generations of lazy welfare dependent families >ever increasing perpetrators of pedophilia and all its variations >serial killers galore >power crazed liberal politicians The age old dichotomy of what powers and how much do we grant the government,how do we control it once granted and perhaps most important, how do we select the governors with the best intentions and commitment to preserving as much liberty as possible may never be solved, but I submit there are far greater wrongs that have been perpetrated by government upon more people than this one single issue. And BTW, why have we allowed a single issue like the right to indiscriminate and often multiple abortions to become a litmus test for political office when there are SO many MUCH more important issues to deal with????? The fanatical supporters of THIS particular "right" are basically saying to the rest of us that: "Unemployment, the American economy and National Security are ALL less important than MY personal right to copulate at will. And I could care less that innocent lives are being snuffed out as a result of MY needs."
“While I appreciate your concerns re erosion of rights, I fail to see how pumping out unplanned/unwanted babies”
I fail to see why we should make a distinction between babies whom are wanted and babies whom are unwanted. The child does not choose the situation her or she is born into. It is the obligation of parents to care for their children, and failing that, the object of a civilized society is to care for the children, who through no fault of their own find themselves in difficult circumstances.
This is how it used to work, before welfare came around. YOu could put your children up for adoption if you were unable to take care of them, and the children would be well kept and looked after.
“forced birth control as a condition to receive public assistance funding is another matter”
Would it not simply be better to abolish welfare altogether and rely upon private good will and charity to accomplish the same ends rather than trampling on the individual rights and freedoms of every man and woman? This seems to me the better option.
“One certifies that they are supposedly looking for a job in order to collect unemployment, must pass tests in order to engage in a variety of income producing activities or drive a car.”
Or perhaps, rather than forcing the people to fund programs that are not working, we should abolish the programs and let the people assist one another. Things would change, it would be difficult for the first while, but after that things would improve.
Of course, you’d also have to do away with other such nonsense like minimum wage laws, etc, and the whole architecture which is designed to fail and prevent people from working and earning a living. Is it better to keep a man fully employed at his work for less, or only employed for the hours in which you can afford to hire him? How is a man worse off for having more work and better pay and being encouraged to work harder in order to earn more?
“I recently saw an article, tracing the offspring of one well know criminal from a couple of generations ago.”
You might want to talk to Galton. He’s rather prominent in this research. Take a look at him, and we see where this philosophy ends up.
“The hypocrisy of Liberalism is evident here as in most issues.”
Which is why we get rid of the trappngs of liberalism, rather than going in even deeper. We are already steep’d in blood, but we must walk out th’other way.
“It is conventional wisdom that “gayness” is a genetic condition and the gay person is immune to changing.”
Yet it is also wrong. Gay people can change their habits as can anyone else who is consumed by addiction, given enough of an effort.
Liberia was created for/by the freed slaves willing to return to Africa. I'm not sure what Sanger had to do with that, unless she dates back before 1847.
Overpopulation is a massive horror. Do you like mass starvation?
Prevention of overpopulation does not have to be a horror show. If done in a spirit of love, and respect for the need to procreate at least once.
The mass breeders will starve themselves their children and yours, if we have to support their unsupportable ways.
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.