Do you believe that there are cases where
a person should be forcibly
sterilised/have a vasectomy performed on
them? Discuss please.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-06-07 15:36pm
Quote:
discuss
please.
hehe, I find thaat amusing, in a good way
anyway...
Despite the fact that I do fel there are
people who should be sterelized, I
must say that in the end, I could never
support something that forcibly invades
someone's body, no matter the reason
behind it; even if it weren't repoductive
in nature.
I think certain cases warrant it. If
there's some crakhead mom who keeps
getting knocked up and giving birth to
crack addicted babies yr after yr, then
ya. I've seen some girls/women who I
don' thikn should ver have been allowed to
reproduce! @@!$%
why this case why not women/men who abuse
their children, why not women/men who
prostitute their children, the doctors who
performed this operation said it was for
her benefit and even debated with the
ethics commitee, if we start to force
people to do things with their bodies we
end up in a world I would not like to live
in.I am pro life for myself but would not
tell anyone else what to do with their
body, just like I would not like to be
told what to do with my body.
Why is it pro choice who wish to take away
choic from who they deem unfit to have
that choice, some will claim that what
this couple have done is no worse than
having an abortion,.[ this is not my
opinion ] at least this was to help that
child live a better quality of life.
do you believe that there
are cases where a person should be
forcibly sterilised/have a vasectomy
performed on them? Discuss
please.
no. I believe that
biologic ability does not equate to
a necessary condition to procreate but
that does not mean that people who I feel
are abusing their abilities should be
stopped. The right to choose only
extends to my own life and body, no one
elses.
why this case why not women/men who abuse
their children, why not women/men who
prostitute their children, the doctors who
performed this operation said it was for
her benefit and even debated with the
ethics commitee, if we start to force
people to do things with their bodies we
end up in a world I would not like to live
in.I am pro life for myself but would not
tell anyone else what to do with their
body, just like I would not like to be
told what to do with my body.
Why is it pro choice who wish to take away
choic from who they deem unfit to have
that choice, some will claim that what
this couple have done is no worse than
having an abortion,.[ this is not my
opinion ] at least this was to help that
child live a better quality of
life.
why this case? You answered it yourself-
to help that child, and her parents, live
a better quality of life. This is very
rare, and quite the exception. I can't
think of any other situation that I could
ethically accept it.
why this case why not women/men who abuse
their children, why not women/men who
prostitute their children, the doctors who
performed this operation said it was for
her benefit and even debated with the
ethics commitee, if we start to force
people to do things with their bodies we
end up in a world I would not like to live
in.I am pro life for myself but would not
tell anyone else what to do with their
body, just like I would not like to be
told what to do with my body.
Why is it pro choice who wish to take away
choic from who they deem unfit to have
that choice, some will claim that what
this couple have done is no worse than
having an abortion,.[ this is not my
opinion ] at least this was to help that
child live a better quality of
life.
why this case? You answered it yourself-
to help that child, and her parents, live
a better quality of life. This is very
rare, and quite the exception. I can't
think of any other situation that I could
ethically accept it.
why this case? You answered it
yourself- to help that child, and her
parents, live a better quality of life.
This is very rare, and quite the
exception. I can't think of any other
situation that I could ethically accept
it.
i think i've figured it out; after logging
in I have to refresh everything! Sorry
about any confusion!
why this case why not women/men who abuse
their children, why not women/men who
prostitute their children, the doctors who
performed this operation said it was for
her benefit and even debated with the
ethics commitee, if we start to force
people to do things with their bodies we
end up in a world I would not like to live
in.I am pro life for myself but would not
tell anyone else what to do with their
body, just like I would not like to be
told what to do with my body.
Why is it pro choice who wish to take away
choic from who they deem unfit to have
that choice, some will claim that what
this couple have done is no worse than
having an abortion,.[ this is not my
opinion ] at least this was to help that
child live a better quality of
life.
why this case? You answered it
yourself- to help that child, and her
parents, live a better quality of life.
This is very rare, and quite the
exception. I can't think of any other
situation that I could ethically accept
it.
thank you for answering but please explain
how sterilizing the mother or father would
give them a better quality of life.Why
should the parents be sterilized.?I am not
going to assume what you mean , I might be
wrong in my opinion but I think it is
because the child is disabled.Why not a
child abuser/killer.
why this case why not women/men who abuse
their children, why not women/men who
prostitute their children, the doctors who
performed this operation said it was for
her benefit and even debated with the
ethics commitee, if we start to force
people to do things with their bodies we
end up in a world I would not like to live
in.I am pro life for myself but would not
tell anyone else what to do with their
body, just like I would not like to be
told what to do with my body.
Why is it pro choice who wish to take away
choic from who they deem unfit to have
that choice, some will claim that what
this couple have done is no worse than
having an abortion,.[ this is not my
opinion ] at least this was to help that
child live a better quality of
life.
why this case? You answered it
yourself- to help that child, and her
parents, live a better quality of life.
This is very rare, and quite the
exception. I can't think of any other
situation that I could ethically accept
it.
thank you for answering but please explain
how sterilizing the mother or father would
give them a better quality of life.Why
should the parents be sterilized.?I am not
going to assume what you mean , I might be
wrong in my opinion but I think it is
because the child is disabled.Why not a
child abuser/killer.
i think she mean the fact that the
disabled daughter was sterilized, not that
her parents were. The daughter being
sterilized improved her quality of life.
|
diamond splinter
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 611 Location: ,
Posted: 02-07-07 10:50am
Some furkin pro choicers you lot are you
make me sick why shouldn't a disabled
woman have the right to give birth why
does she not have the right to choose
forced sterilisation is as bad as forced
abortion or pregnancy I think you have
all( just proven with the exception of
eiri who stated she doesn't advocate
forced sterilisation) that you are pro
abort not pro choice.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-07-07 11:03am
I'm on the fence about it. On one hand,
there's a ton of crappy parents who
definitely should have their reproductive
rights removed before harming more
innocent lives. On the other hand, i'm
not exactly supportive of any kind of
forced medical procedure. People can have
their kids taken from them if they're
lousy parents, but it won't stop them from
having more kids - sometimes I think the
people who pop out kid after kid after kid
while fully knowing the kids will be taken
are somehow trying to get revenge on the
law - as if saying, "you can take the
babies, but you can't stop us, so hah hah
hah! You can't win!" I know this wasn't
necessarily something that got brought up,
but i'm using it as an example.
Quote:
i might be wrong
in my opinion but I think it is because
the child is disabled.Why not a child
abuser/killer.
why would sterilizing a child abuser or
killer make any difference? Just because
someone can't make biological children
won't stop them from sexually assaulting
children - it's not like their potential
children would have been the only children
on the planet.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3840 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 91
Thanked:77
Posted: 02-07-07 11:39am
cambion
wrote:
why would sterilizing a
child abuser or killer make any
difference? Just because someone can't
make biological children won't stop them
from sexually assaulting children - it's
not like their potential children would
have been the only children on the
planet.
out of interest though, wouldn't removing
the testicles of a man reduce his sex
drive (like with castrating dogs?). If
it does, then it could be argued that
paedophiles and rapists should have their
nuts removed to help them not reoffend...
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-07-07 12:34pm
diamond splinter
wrote:
some furkin pro choicers you
lot are you make me sick why shouldn't a
disabled woman have the right to give
birth why does she not have the right to
choose forced sterilisation is as bad as
forced abortion or pregnancy I think you
have all( just proven with the exception
of eiri who stated she doesn't advocate
forced sterilisation) that you are pro
abort not pro
choice.
because she has the intelligence of a
three month old.
Do you think a three month old baby could
understand the process of even having sex?
No! She can't even properly comprehend
her own existance, much less the concept
of sexual attraction, sex, pregnancy, and
birth.
Talk about babies having babies, that
would literally be the case here!
I can't believe you'd want a 3 month old
baby to have menstrual cramps. This poor
girl couldn't understand those, either.
She'd only know she was in pain, period,
that's it.
There is also no sense to put her or her
family through the mess of menstruation
every single month, for a girl who has the
mind of a three month old baby.
This girl is never going to be a mommy.
She will need a mommy for her entire
life. She will always be a three month
old baby, for her whole life. What is
wrong with you, that you'd want this baby
to become pregnant!?
Is it wrong to get female dogs spayed?
Spaying also prevents them from going into
heat, thus eliminating the mess. It also
prevents them from getting pregnant,
especially if you never intend for your
dog to give birth.
thank you for answering but please explain
how sterilizing the mother or father would
give them a better quality of life.Why
should the parents be sterilized.?I am not
going to assume what you mean , I might be
wrong in my opinion but I think it is
because the child is disabled.Why not a
child abuser/killer.
diamondsplinter
wrote:
some furkin pro choicers you
lot are you make me sick why shouldn't a
disabled woman have the right to give
birth why does she not have the right to
choose forced sterilisation is as bad as
forced abortion or pregnancy I think you
have all( just proven with the exception
of eiri who stated she doesn't advocate
forced sterilisation) that you are pro
abort not pro
choice.
if you had both checked out the link, you
would see the reasoning behind it.
In a side note, 'they'-meaning the medical
community- used to forceably sterilize
mentally retarded women, too. And the
deaf, blind, epileptic, physically
deformed, and certain races. This is an
abhorrent practice that I wouldn't support
if they paid me a zillion dollars.
(unless it was aimed at religious zealots,
kids who rip wings off flies, celery
farmers, and the .Bush family. I'm
kidding, i'm kidding! Joke! Ha ha!
Hee hee!)
purestgreen
wrote:
out of interest though,
wouldn't removing the testicles of a man
reduce his sex drive (like with castrating
dogs?). If it does, then it could be
argued that paedophiles and rapists should
have their nuts removed to help them not
reoffend...
funny you should say so...From our friends
at wikipedia...
"chemical castration is a form of
temporary castration caused by certain
hormonal drugs. It was developed as a
temporary preventive measure or
punishment, typically for male child sex
offenders and rapists.
Depo provera, a progestin; and tamoxifen,
a drug previously used in breast cancer,
are the drugs most commonly used today for
sex offenders. Depo provera acts on the
brain to inhibit hormones that stimulate
the testicles to produce testosterone;
whereas tamoxifen works by blocking the
aromatase enzyme. Depo provera also
neutralises all testosterone so none can
be converted to estrogen by the aromatase
enzyme. The herb chrysin also works by
blocking the aromatase enzyme.
Spironolactone, a diuretic, also is an
effective testosterone blocker.
Chemical castration also occurs as a
natural consequence of hormone treatment
for male-to-female transsexualism.
However, unlike the treatment used on sex
offenders, the hormones commonly used lead
to permanent infertility...
According to jeffrey kirchmeier, at least
six states have experimented with chemical
castration laws in the united
states. Those states are
california, florida, georgia, texas,
louisiana, and montana. California was
the first state to use chemical castration
as a punishment for paedophiles. In
california, judges may require first-time
offenders to undergo chemical castration.
After a second offense treatment is
mandatory.[1] in iowa and florida chemical
castration is available in all cases
involving serious sex offenses. As in
california treatment is mandatory after a
second offense."
*stressor is mine because there have been
some comments about geographic egoism.
"chemical castration is a
form of temporary castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was
developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male
child sex offenders and
rapists.
they are finding out
that it doesn't really work. Many
offenders continue offending even on
treatment because the testosterone and
adrenaline they produce override the other
chemicals. And, if they can't get it up,
many of them can still rape/molest using
objects. So, in short, it is not a magic
cure-all for rapists and child molesters.
"chemical castration is a
form of temporary castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was
developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male
child sex offenders and
rapists.
they are finding out
that it doesn't really work. Many
offenders continue offending even on
treatment because the testosterone and
adrenaline they produce override the other
chemicals. And, if they can't get it
up, many of them can still rape/molest
using objects. So, in short, it is not
a magic cure-all for rapists and child
molesters.
this makes sense. They need their brains
castrated.
And then put in prison for an extremely
long time. The recidivism rate is so
high for these kinds of offenders. Plus,
isn't just hurting one kid/person enough
to warrant life in prison? Or, "you stay
in jail until the person you hurt is done
dealing with it". Seems fair.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 369 Location: Ontario, Canada
"chemical castration is a
form of temporary castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was
developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male
child sex offenders and
rapists.
they are finding out
that it doesn't really work. Many
offenders continue offending even on
treatment because the testosterone and
adrenaline they produce override the other
chemicals. And, if they can't get it
up, many of them can still rape/molest
using objects. So, in short, it is not
a magic cure-all for rapists and child
molesters.
which is one reason i'm for executing
child molesters.
