Forced Sterilization

[Meg 368]

I believe that the government should not force people to be sterilized.   Throughout the years, a various countries have had forced sterilization programs for various reason.   It now generally regarded as a crime against humanity, as it should be.

But there are times, there are cases, where it is highly tempting to make an exception.

29-Year-Old has Fathered at least 21 Kids with at least 11 Different Mothers

This guy has a minimum wage job and has no hope of supporting them all.

There is only so much the courts can do to get him to pay child support.  Even if he pays the court-ordered amount, the kids will wind up on welfare.

This guy claims that it "just happened".   Over the course of 11 years. 

 

I believe that his behavior is highly irresponsible.  But there don't seem to be any laws to address this issue.

 

It is possible to "lose parental rights", which basically means that you have been such an irresponsible parent that the government is taking custody of your children.   But there is no legal way to lose the right to become a parent.  

 

As I understand it, as long as this guy keeps giving the court 50% of his income, he is free to continue on his merry way.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Holy Moly.Not much more they can do except put them all on assistance.

Reminds me of the Octomom Story and trying to figure out how that was not stoped before it started. I mean how does someone on public assistance get invitro treatment when she already had 6 kids.

[Boggy1 45]

With overpopulation as it is now..I think sterilization would be very prudent. But mainly for people who are wreckless when it comes to having children. Or serial rapists.

Same goes for that ridiculous octomom woman. The guy who did the IVF should be prosecuted and his medical license stripped.

What would probably work better is for adoption to become a social norm. So that people adopt children instead of having their own kids. Plus, the more kids you have, the more tax is put on you. It should be cumulative. So it would be almost impossible to have more than, say, 7 kids surviving on a low budget. Besides, five or more kids is generally pretty darn immoral in my opinion.

[Lumbergh 0]

"a burden on the people" argument (as in, people who contribute little or nothing to society and are as such a burden by the state who is forced to take care of them) is actually how the Nazi's were able to get away with much in the beginning as far as the sterilization of the mentally handicap and ill went prior to the enactment of the final solution, in addition to certain ethnic groups although much of that was done in or attempted in to be secret unlike the prior which was approved by much of the populace. that said, I still think sterilization should be practiced on certain people like the one in the article, provided it does not become a blanket law and is judged on a case by case basis.

[J. Doe 0]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

What would probably work better is for adoption to become a social norm. So that people adopt children instead of having their own kids.quote>

But where would you get the kids to adopt from?

Plus, the more kids you have, the more tax is put on you. It should be cumulative. So it would be almost impossible to have more than, say, 7 kids surviving on a low budget. Besides, five or more kids is generally pretty darn immoral in my opinion.

quote>

The budget apparently isn't sufficent anyway if the kids children need welfare.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: J. Doe

Originally posted by: Boggy1

What would probably work better is for adoption to become a social norm. So that people adopt children instead of having their own kids.quote>

But where would you get the kids to adopt from?

Plus, the more kids you have, the more tax is put on you. It should be cumulative. So it would be almost impossible to have more than, say, 7 kids surviving on a low budget. Besides, five or more kids is generally pretty darn immoral in my opinion.

quote>

The budget apparently isn't sufficent anyway if the kids children need welfare.

quote>

the Hundreds of thousands that pack the orphanages both here and around the world.

[Dvark 2]

I don't think there should be forced sterilization for anyone.

But I do think stupid people should be shot.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Forced sterilization violates two fundamental human rights: the ownership of one's own body (which is replaced with forced sterilization with state ownership), and the right to not be assaulted (and forced sterilization is the ethical equivalent of assault in the effects and method). I am opposed to forced sterilization for those two reasons, and the principle that neither the state nor any people can violate a person's rights for any reason.

If people are having "too many children" (ambiguous meaning), and there is not enough resources to feed them, it will correct itself in something like a Malthusian catastrophe, in which the excess population dies off. Not pretty, but it is better than a totalitarian regime.

For the record, I agree with Barbarossa on personal responsibility when it comes to having children.

But I do think stupid people should be shot.quote>

Well, aside from the ethical problems in state-sponsored systematic murder (genocide), there is also the problem of defining who is stupid.

[Jatsc 1]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Forced sterilization violates two fundamental human rights: the ownership of one's own body (which is replaced with forced sterilization with state ownership), and the right to not be assaulted (and forced sterilization is the ethical equivalent of assault in the effects and method). I am opposed to forced sterilization for those two reasons, and the principle that neither the state nor any people can violate a person's rights for any reason.

If people are having "too many children" (ambiguous meaning), and there is not enough resources to feed them, it will correct itself in something like a Malthusian catastrophe, in which the excess population dies off. Not pretty, but it is better than a totalitarian regime.

For the record, I agree with Barbarossa on personal responsibility when it comes to having children.

But I do think stupid people should be shot.quote>

Well, aside from the ethical problems in state-sponsored systematic murder (genocide), there is also the problem of defining who is stupid.

quote>

I agree I'm against sterilization for all causes except for if that person commits sterilization on someone else. There is no reason for any human to make a decision on another person body . If we start at this who knows how far it could go 

If the person is having to many children make him/her deal with it with no help of any means.

The earth is no where near what it can support interms of human life we could have 10-20 billion people more on earth if people lived withthere means instead of what they want.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Forced sterilization violates two fundamental human rights: the ownership of one's own body (which is replaced with forced sterilization with state ownership), and the right to not be assaulted (and forced sterilization is the ethical equivalent of assault in the effects and method). I am opposed to forced sterilization for those two reasons, and the principle that neither the state nor any people can violate a person's rights for any reason.

If people are having "too many children" (ambiguous meaning), and there is not enough resources to feed them, it will correct itself in something like a Malthusian catastrophe, in which the excess population dies off. Not pretty, but it is better than a totalitarian regime.

For the record, I agree with Barbarossa on personal responsibility when it comes to having children.

But I do think stupid people should be shot.quote>

Well, aside from the ethical problems in state-sponsored systematic murder (genocide), there is also the problem of defining who is stupid.quote>

Theres a good article in this months ( Junes ) National Geographic about the state of agriculture world wide and what the green revolution and high yield crops did to the world population.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Forced sterilization violates two fundamental human rights: the ownership of one's own body (which is replaced with forced sterilization with state ownership), and the right to not be assaulted (and forced sterilization is the ethical equivalent of assault in the effects and method).quote>

I agree.  Can't argue with that.

Originally posted by: Jatsc

For the record, I agree with Barbarossa on personal responsibility when it comes to having children.  quote>

As do I.

Originally posted by: Jatsc

If the person is having to many children make him/her deal with it with no help of any means. quote>

Makes sense.  

Exactly how would you make this guy deal with it?

[Explodingsims 3]

I have to agree with everyone else here, forced sterilization is not the solution.

Besides, how often does this happen? You only hear about these incidents when the occur in the news.

And while we're on this topic, its funny to see how people react to stories like this.

People who will normally talk about how incompetent and mismanaged the government is will suddenly want to give that same government the power to determine who should be parents.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Forced sterilization violates two fundamental human rights: the ownership of one's own body (which is replaced with forced sterilization with state ownership), and the right to not be assaulted (and forced sterilization is the ethical equivalent of assault in the effects and method).quote>

I agree.  Can't argue with that.

quote>

I agree also. The one exception might be severely disabled people who are under state care because they can't make informed decisions for themselves, in which case temporary chemical sterilisation ie contraception (as opposed to permanent surgical) may be an option. That way if they are eventually able to make their own choices the sterilisation can be easily reversed, but in the meantime they don't end up with another situation (a child) that they can't cope with on top of everything else. Protection of those who can't protect themselves is part of society's responsibility to its members.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Jatsc

For the record, I agree with Barbarossa on personal responsibility when it comes to having children.  quote>

As do I.

quote>

So do I. However I don't think it's something you can legislate.The real problem is an attitude that people have towards responsibility. Many people think their problems should be someone else's responsibility. Far too many. And this is what needs to be adressed. The courts and legal system do have a role to play in this, but it will not succeed without an effort to change society's way of looking at self-responsibility and actually making an effort to encourage it in people, and provide people with the skills for self responsibility, while discouraging or penalising those who don't take responsibility for their actions.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Jatsc

If the person is having to many children make him/her deal with it with no help of any means. quote>

Makes sense.  

Exactly how would you make this guy deal with it?

quote>

Good question. And I think that's where the problem is, in coming up with suitable penalties, corrective measures and deterrants to deal with these kinds of situation. And this is where it is difficult to pass a law to cover it, because laws are inherrently quite inflexible. They have to be simple enough to apply and for people to follow them, so they can't encode responses for all the nuances that these kind of situations inherently have. That's why the answer has to largely come from society, with the courts as support. The magistrates in these cases need to be given wide latitude in judging the individual circumstances in each case and a variety of corrective measures at their disposal.

Penalties may need to be a bit imaginitive, and you need to hit these people where they'll really feel it, and in a way that shows them that their actions have hurt people and society and that there are consequences to that. For example the courts could impose:

• Loss of tax breaks or rebates to people who have more than a certain number of children/partners on welfare (reflecting the need for society to recoup the cost of paying welfare to those dependents).
• Community service in a relevant area (eg an orphanage or charity or other place they will see the consequences of their actions) to an amount equivalent to repay the debt they can't pay financially
• Attending parenthood classes and other lifeskill classes
• Service of a certain number of hours to the family (mother and child) of the child, like community service but to the family. For example, doing the shopping from a list given by the mother, helping with the housework and house maintenance. Again equivalent in hours to the amount of support that he is unable to pay.

But ulitmately this kind of irresponsible behaviour needs to be condemned by society as a whole, not just by the justice system. It is society's attitude that needs to change.

[Duke87 1,070]

Uh huh. Well, see, there's this magic little "25 cent insurance policy" courtesy of that giant wooden horse...

...but it's no fun if it's safe sex, because safety is uncool, right? Like skating with a helmet and pads.

I'd perform a few tests on the guy. 11 mothers, possibly more partners that didn't conceive... there's a good chance that he caught a little venereal souveneir somewhere along the way.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Plus, the more kids you have, the more tax is put on you. It should be cumulative. So it would be almost impossible to have more than, say, 7 kids surviving on a low budget. Besides, five or more kids is generally pretty darn immoral in my opinion.quote>

Generally, it works the other way around. For each child you have (or, more generally, for each person you have listed as a dependant), you get a tax deduction. The logic being that taking care of those kids is expensive and thus someone who doesn't have any can afford to pay more in tax than someone who has a couple. Makes perfect sense, and I wouldn't favor changing it.

...simply because putting a tax on it will not effectively curtail reproduction. Because, quite often (perhaps more often than not), it's not responsibly planned out, it just "happens". Because, nature being what it is, people have these urges which have an uncanny ability of overriding rational thought.

You also have to consider that there are people whose religious beliefs are against contraception and stipulate that they are supposed to just have as many kids as god blesses them with. Such a tax would unfairly interfere with their beliefs and their right to practice them. Which, say what you will about it, but it's distinctly different from merely being irresponsible in that they genuinely believe they're doing the right thing.

[hamsterTK 93]

 its called a vasectomy. okay, problem solved. But no remember the sperm portion of semen is only a small portion and comes from a different organ than the goo part. thats what a vasectomy does, to snip the tubes

In the future some contraception might be invented to block the production of semen temporarily while you could still have normal sex. combined with a condom seems like the risk of failure would be near zero. STD's aren't resolved but for society's sake accidental pregnancy is more of an externality than you getting herpes.

I dunno, I agree with people, and when I hear castration I actually cringe. Sure, an actual serial rapist who murders toddlers, yes it would be appropriate. My concern is the present trend of how the sex offender laws are are being abused by judges and prosecutors

College streaking pranks. Or minors being charged for kiddie porn for their own photos that aren't even nude or legally definable as obscene. Is it sex offender or offended by sex? bada bish!  That's my only fear then, if castration or forced sterilization was a legal punishment I think it would be abused by these psychotic conservative judges and prosecutors especially on young people who don't deserve it.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I agree also. The one exception might be severely disabled people who are under state care because they can't make informed decisions for themselves, in which case temporary chemical sterilisation ie contraception (as opposed to permanent surgical) may be an option. That way if they are eventually able to make their own choices the sterilisation can be easily reversed, but in the meantime they don't end up with another situation (a child) that they can't cope with on top of everything else. Protection of those who can't protect themselves is part of society's responsibility to its members.quote>

Why would severely disables people in your scenario need to be temporarily sterilized?

Good question. And I think that's where the problem is, in coming up with suitable penalties, corrective measures and deterrants to deal with these kinds of situation. And this is where it is difficult to pass a law to cover it, because laws are inherrently quite inflexible. They have to be simple enough to apply and for people to follow them, so they can't encode responses for all the nuances that these kind of situations inherently have. That's why the answer has to largely come from society, with the courts as support. The magistrates in these cases need to be given wide latitude in judging the individual circumstances in each case and a variety of corrective measures at their disposal.quote>

I am not one to support giving courts more of a grip than they already have, so I would be opposed to this proposal. Also, laws need to be based on rights, not on what "society" thinks (as if it was a monolithic entity).

Penalties may need to be a bit imaginitive, and you need to hit these people where they'll really feel it, and in a way that shows them that their actions have hurt people and society and that there are consequences to that. For example the courts could impose:

• Loss of tax breaks or rebates to people who have more than a certain number of children/partners on welfare (reflecting the need for society to recoup the cost of paying welfare to those dependents).quote>

How many would be too many? That is the problem, and is nearly impossible to determine.

Community service in a relevant area (eg an orphanage or charity or other place they will see the consequences of their actions) to an amount equivalent to repay the debt they can't pay financiallyquote>

Nah, I'm very uncomfortable in sentencing someone to do forced labor. Also, again, how much is equivalent to the "debt

 they cannot pay (which is not technically a debt)?

Attending parenthood classes and other lifeskill classesquote>

This kind of repulses me, so I have no furthur response.

Service of a certain number of hours to the family (mother and child) of the child, like community service but to the family. For example, doing the shopping from a list given by the mother, helping with the housework and house maintenance. Again equivalent in hours to the amount of support that he is unable to pay.quote>

Since they would effectively be forced to do it, I don't believe that the person in question would be much of a father. Besides, wouldn't they have the same amount of money to work with anyway? It's not like employing forced labor will increase their income.

But ulitmately this kind of irresponsible behaviour needs to be condemned by society as a whole, not just by the justice system. It is society's attitude that needs to change.quote>

If you mean a social stigma, it wouldn't be a bad thing.

I dunno, I agree with people, and when I hear castration I actually cringe. Sure, an actual serial rapist who murders toddlers, yes it would be appropriate. quote>

Toddlers are no different than other people when it comes to murder. What age do you determine if a rape/murder is punishable by castration? You have to punish all of them with it or none of them, in order to not be arbitrary punishment.

My concern is the present trend of how the sex offender laws are are being abused by judges and prosecutors

College streaking pranks. Or minors being charged for kiddie porn for their own photos that aren't even nude or legally definable as obscene. Is it sex offender or offended by sex? bada bish!  That's my only fear then, if castration or forced sterilization was a legal punishment I think it would be abused by these psychotic conservative judges and prosecutors especially on young people who don't deserve it.quote>

Yes, their power will be abused, and indeed is already being abused rampantly in other ways.

[mightygoose 92]

serial rapists, child rapists and gang rapists should all be castrated. my view has been that by infinging on the basic human rights of other you surrender the right to your own by eqaul measure.... by sexually assaulting someone, you lose the right to become a victim of sexual assualt legally, and thus you would not be breaching the person's now restricted human rights...

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I agree also. The one exception might be severely disabled people who are under state care because they can't make informed decisions for themselves, in which case temporary chemical sterilisation ie contraception (as opposed to permanent surgical) may be an option. That way if they are eventually able to make their own choices the sterilisation can be easily reversed, but in the meantime they don't end up with another situation (a child) that they can't cope with on top of everything else. Protection of those who can't protect themselves is part of society's responsibility to its members.quote>

Why would severely disables people in your scenario need to be temporarily sterilized?

quote>

I'm talking about those people that may be so intellectually disabled that they are unable to understand what sexual reproduction is (or comprehend that sex leads to reproduction) but are nevertheless physically adult and subject to sexual urges and capable of acting on them (without having any understanding of them, or control over them). Often they may live permanently in institutions with other residents of both genders. They are very vulnerable to being taken advantage of without having any knowledge of what consequences there will be, and have fewer defences and may have lower awareness of danger than people who are not intellectually disabled. In some cases their disabilities may make them also physically at risk if they have to carry a child to term. While it would be ideal that they are supervised sufficiently that they are never allowed to get into such a situation, this is sadly sometimes not the case.

In the past, these people were sometimes surgically sterilised, so that even if something did happen to them they wouldn't have the added burden of carrying a child when they couldn't physically or intellectually handle that. In some cases it would have allowed them to live independently in reasonable safety. Even in that situation I am opposed to forced sterilisation (so you can imagine my views on forced sterilisation just because someone had been sleeping around a bit).

However I don't think the situation this man is in can in any way be considered comparable, so I'd consider forced sterilisation barbaric in these circumstances. (Certainly a lot more barbaric than the court sentencing him to 100 hours community service).

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I am not one to support giving courts more of a grip than they already have, so I would be opposed to this proposal. Also, laws need to be based on rights, not on what "society" thinks (as if it was a monolithic entity).

quote>

Humans are a social species. Living in a group like that involves teamwork and it means people in the group need to contribute to the group's success or the group doesn't work. This means that sometimes an individual's goals, actions or desires may be detrimental to the welfare of the group or other individual's goals, actions or welfare. When this happens you have a conflict. In the terms that you used, the rights of people often conflict with the rights of others. What do you do then? Whose rights take precedence? There needs to be some compromise.  This is why there are laws, which are basically mutual agreements so that those in the group can get along with each other with minimal interference to each other. But it is inevitable that people's "rights" will conflict with the rights of another at times.

This is why we have courts - to sort out the resulting mess. You seem to see courts differently to what I do. I've always learned and experienced that they are (at least in the civil sphere) to resolve (or at least put an end to) situations where peoples rights and responsibilities conflict with those of others.

Note also "responsibilities". You mentioned rights, but not responsibilities, but they go together, never one without the other. If you live with others, sure you have some rights, but you have responsibilities too. The law is not just about "rights" but about "responsibilites".  This man seems to have forgotten about some of his responsibilities and it looks like as a result some other people have had their rights infringed.

So who has rights in this situation. The man certainly, also the mothers, the children and the tax-payers (who seem to be footing the bill). Who has responsibilities? As above plus the courts. So its up to the court to figure out how to get the best result for everyone. That's why we keep them around and pay them the big bucks, because there are no easy answers.

But back to the responsibilities thing, I've noticed lately that it seems to becoming more prevalent to emphasize the "rights" side of the equation and ignore the "responsibilities" side. People seem to be becoming more stridently "me, me, me".

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Nah, I'm very uncomfortable in sentencing someone to do forced labor. Also, again, how much is equivalent to the "debt

 they cannot pay (which is not technically a debt)?

quote>

How is it any different to a teenager who vandalises a school being sentenced to clean up vandalised property as his/her repayment to society. Or someone with outstanding fines being sentenced to community service?

It's worked out on the basis of how much you owe, divided by the rate per hour to give the total number of hours you need to serve.

This man has apparently had some kids that need child support paid but he can't pay. So the tax-payer has had to foot the bill. So now he owe's the taxpayer some money. I assume financial records are kept of the amounts involved. If you incur a debt it is reasonable to expect that you will have to pay it back one way or another.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Attending parenthood classes and other lifeskill classesquote>

This kind of repulses me, so I have no furthur response.

quote>

More so than forcing someone to submit to a court ordered vasectomy against their will?

How is it any different to a serial traffic offender being ordered by the court to complete a defensive driving course?

The main reason many people get into trouble is not because they are criminally minded or are out to deliberately hurt anyone. In many cases they don't have the skills, judgement or knowledge to keep themselves out of bad situations. How is helping them get those skills a bad thing? The courts and justice is not just about punishing people so other people can feel they've had vengence. Its also about trying to stop people re-offending. The law is not about revenge, but so many people seem to think it is, or want it to be. If there is no importance attached to preventing re-offending, then the justice system just becomes a revolving door.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Since they would effectively be forced to do it, I don't believe that the person in question would be much of a father. Besides, wouldn't they have the same amount of money to work with anyway? It's not like employing forced labor will increase their income.

quote>

I wasn't implying he should be expected to be a "father" eg kick a footy around with the kids and take them to the park.  I'm implying that he has a financial debt to them that he apparently doesn't have enough money to repay, so the only thing he's got left of any value to trade in reparation is his time (which is what people do every day when they go to work).

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

It's not like employing forced labor will increase their income.

quote>

It could do if by doing some of the things the mother would otherwise have to do, it gives her a few extra hours a week she could potentially be out earning money at work or doing other things her family needs, it could help out considerably.

Are you suggesting that he face no consequences for his actions and have no obligation to repay either financially or in kind, what it has cost other people to help raise his kids when he sits around and does nothing about it? Would you expect a person who gets a fine for drink driving says to the judge, "sorry judge, I've got no money to pay so you'll just have to let me go". Would you expect the judge to say "ok, you were caught drink driving but since you can't pay I'll just have to waive the whole thing, you're a free man".

What about the rights of the taxpayers? Should they really have to work extra so that they can pay for this man's children to be raised? That would indeed be forced labour and they weren't the ones who did anything wrong. Neither have the kids done anything wrong, but they can't do anything about it.  He can. Should the kids have to pay for their father's actions by giving up or sacrificing time at school so they can work to earn enough money to pay for necessities?

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Humans are a social species. Living in a group like that involves teamwork and it means people in the group need to contribute to the group's success or the group doesn't work. quote>

That is essentially correct. I would say that people should contribute to other people's success, which would have the same effect as contributing to the group. However, working under the assumption that the group is a monolithic entity does not work, as groups are by definition comprised of individuals. If no individual succeeds, the group on balance naturally does not. If most or all of the individuals succeed, then the group on balance does succeed.

This means that sometimes an individual's goals, actions or desires may be detrimental to the welfare of the group or other individual's goals, actions or welfare. When this happens you have a conflict. In the terms that you used, the rights of people often conflict with the rights of others. What do you do then? Whose rights take precedence? There needs to be some compromise.  This is why there are laws, which are basically mutual agreements so that those in the group can get along with each other with minimal interference to each other. But it is inevitable that people's "rights" will conflict with the rights of another at times. quote>

Perhaps the best response is to clarify the quote you responded to. I stated that laws should not aim to enforce what "society" is deemed by some people to "think" or "believe". Laws should not merely codify social stigmas and legally force people to do what other people believe they should. Laws need to aim to protect the rights of citizens and residents, and to punish in some form those who violate their rights. More often than not, when rights come into conflict, one of the rights in question is not an actual human right, or turns out to be a civil right, or is not a right at all.

This is why we have courts - to sort out the resulting mess. You seem to see courts differently to what I do. I've always learned and experienced that they are (at least in the civil sphere) to resolve (or at least put an end to) situations where peoples rights and responsibilities conflict with those of others.quote>

Courts have their role, but we should be careful to not extend their power to the point where it is a tyrrany over people's lives. I believe that most of us could agree on that.

Note also "responsibilities". You mentioned rights, but not responsibilities, but they go together, never one without the other. If you live with others, sure you have some rights, but you have responsibilities too. The law is not just about "rights" but about "responsibilites".  This man seems to have forgotten about some of his responsibilities and it looks like as a result some other people have had their rights infringed.

[...]

But back to the responsibilities thing, I've noticed lately that it seems to becoming more prevalent to emphasize the "rights" side of the equation and ignore the "responsibilities" side. People seem to be becoming more stridently "me, me, me".quote>

I do believe in a certain set of responsibilities, and so do you. I did not mention responsibilities because they are not applicable to this discussion, one of whether the state should have power to sterilize whoever they wish forcibly.

Also, did these people not consent to sex with this man? They had children, and knew the consequences of having children with their income. They could have gotten abortions, but they chose to carry the children to birth. They should have to live with the consequences of their decision.

Attending parenthood classes and other lifeskill classesquote>

This kind of repulses me, so I have no furthur response.quote>

More so than forcing someone to submit to a court ordered vasectomy against their will?quote>

Not as a violation of rights, but as being ineffective with a lot of these people. We're talking about two different subjects: efficacy of sentences, and rights violations.

How is it any different to a serial traffic offender being ordered by the court to complete a defensive driving course?quote>

It is not that different. I am saying that it can be ineffective on someone that has violated traffic laws. Informing him about driving attitudes is probably not going to change his behavior.

The main reason many people get into trouble is not because they are criminally minded or are out to deliberately hurt anyone. In many cases they don't have the skills, judgement or knowledge to keep themselves out of bad situations. How is helping them get those skills a bad thing? quote>

If it would help them, it is not a bad thing. The trouble is that a lot of the time it does not help them at all, and thus was ineffective.

The courts and justice is not just about punishing people so other people can feel they've had vengence. Its also about trying to stop people re-offending. The law is not about revenge, but so many people seem to think it is, or want it to be. If there is no importance attached to preventing re-offending, then the justice system just becomes a revolving door.quote>

That is why sentencing should not be a one-size-fits-all system. I happen to believe that taking a parenting class is not going to help this man. You may think differently. For some, jail time works, just as for others fines or classes work.

Since they would effectively be forced to do it, I don't believe that the person in question would be much of a father. Besides, wouldn't they have the same amount of money to work with anyway? It's not like employing forced labor will increase their income.quote>

I wasn't implying he should be expected to be a "father" eg kick a footy around with the kids and take them to the park.  I'm implying that he has a financial debt to them that he apparently doesn't have enough money to repay, so the only thing he's got left of any value to trade in reparation is his time (which is what people do every day when they go to work).

It's not like employing forced labor will increase their income.quote>

It could do if by doing some of the things the mother would otherwise have to do, it gives her a few extra hours a week she could potentially be out earning money at work or doing other things her family needs, it could help out considerably. quote>

Well then, so basically you are saying he should be a slave for a time so that the mothers can work more? That would work if the mother worked more, which she may be unwilling or unable to do.

Would you expect a person who gets a fine for drink driving says to the judge, "sorry judge, I've got no money to pay so you'll just have to let me go". Would you expect the judge to say "ok, you were caught drink driving but since you can't pay I'll just have to waive the whole thing, you're a free man".quote>

No, I wouldn't, because the object of that sentencing is to punish the person for violating traffic laws. Either a fine or jail time would work to accomplish that objective. However, this is different, because in this case the father serving jail time is not going to help those families any, which I thought was what everyone was aiming for.

What about the rights of the taxpayers? Should they really have to work extra so that they can pay for this man's children to be raised? That would indeed be forced labour and they weren't the ones who did anything wrong.quote>

Taxpayers do not have to work more to pay for these families. Tax rates do not even have to be increased, because I doubt if these families will place the state under more fiscal strain. Therefore, taxpayers will not have to work more, thus it would not be forced labor, especially since they are being paid for their work.

Should the kids have to pay for their father's actions by giving up or sacrificing time at school so they can work to earn enough money to pay for necessities?quote>

Well, I don't believe the government would let them have a job even if they wanted one, and they are forced to go to school, so that will not cut out of their time at school. Can't the mother try to find herself a job and better herself and her family? Or is that somehow impossible?

serial rapists, child rapists and gang rapists should all be castrated. my view has been that by infinging on the basic human rights of other you surrender the right to your own by eqaul measure....quote>

Surrender them to whom? The state?

And why should one rape of a "child" (person under 18) equal many rapes of someone older than that? I see absolutely no justification for that point of view. Also, if you infringe upon another's human right(s), you should be punished in some way by the state, but not out of proportion to the crime. In this scenario, if you assault someone, murder someone, or rape someone, then you become a subhuman object of the state with no rights. Think of the implications: you can be tortured, you can be raped, you can be sterilized, you can be assaulted, you can be murdered, you can be forced into hard labor, and a lot of other acts. That is what would happen if you had no human rights. That is not proportional to any crime, even serial rape.

by sexually assaulting someone, you lose the right to become a victim of sexual assualt legally, and thus you would not be breaching the person's now restricted human rights...quote>

The right to become a victim of sexual assault. What a term. Such a "right" does not exist. And please clarify on how a person who has had his human rights removed cannot breach another person's now restricted human rights that have not been restricted .

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

...quote>

I thought that at least the two of us had pretty much concluded that forced sterilisation for this guy is not an option and largely for the same reason, that it was a violation of basic human rights.

Although the first part of the OP was in reference to human rights, the second part in conjunction with the article linked to, at least to my reading of it, seemed to relate to the fact that there were no laws to recoup the amount that taxpayers have had to pay because the state can't take more than half of his wage.

 

[hym 358]

More often than not, when rights come into conflict, one of the rights in question is not an actual human right, or turns out to be a civil right, or is not a right at all.quote>

Can you provide some examples of this?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

In the future some contraception might be invented to block the production of semen temporarily while you could still have normal sex. quote>

Doubt it. That sort of thing works with women ("the pill"), because you're working with a whole cocktail of different sex hormones, and so you can tinker with one or two to achieve a desied effect without having tons of side effects. But with men, there's only one sex hormone (testosterone), so it's basically all or nothing. The biochemistry is such that you can't suppress one aspect of someone's manhood without suppressing all of them.

Say what you will about the fairness of it having to be the woman who uses contraceptive drugs, but it's reality, like it or not.

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Attending parenthood classes and other lifeskill classesquote>

This kind of repulses me, so I have no furthur response.

quote>

More so than forcing someone to submit to a court ordered vasectomy against their will?

How is it any different to a serial traffic offender being ordered by the court to complete a defensive driving course?quote>

The law is explicit about rules of the road. There are right and wrong ways to drive. It's easy to determine if someone's driving the wrong way and do something about it.

Parenting, however, is far more subjective. There are many and varied opinions on what constitutes good or bad parenting. And ultimately, it's the right of the parents to raise their kids as they see fit, so long as they aren't doing anything that's in blatant violation of external laws, such as being grossly abusive or negligent. Though, even then, it's not clear cut at what point something becomes abusive or negligent. There's a lot of gray area in there.

Point being, traffic class is merely reaffirming that there are the rules which must be followed.

But parenting class, when not taken willingly, is the state enforcing a given opinion on what constitutes good parenting on people who will likely disagree with some aspects of it - and have every right to.

[mightygoose 92]

sorry to clarify i meant that by sexually assaulting someone and infringing on their rights in that way, you lose your rights in any relevant case. if the state were to then castrate you, it would not be a crime or infact an infringement on your rights as you have no rights in that respect, you forfeited them by commiting the crime... once the sentence is completely served the rights are restored... however this does not mean it would be open season in prisons as that is not general circulation, within the prison walls all rights are temporarily restored.

a qualifying example....

man A attacks man B with the intention to assault him and cause bodily harm, man B happens to be a well trained martial artist. man B causes minor injuries man A in the process of neutralising the attack, but himself remains unharmed. currently man A would have a case in court for assault against man B. with the forfeit of similar rights policy i propose, man B would be immune from conviction of a crime of similar nature in this instance. it would also absolve the guilt of the victim in any kill or be killed situation...

[hamsterTK 93]

'Sperm-stopping' male pill hope

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

'Sperm-stopping' male pill hope

quote>

Interesting.

Well, we don't know whether it'll actually work, or that there won't be any side effects from long term usage, but it's a possibility.

And, consistent with what I said before about not being able to mess with hormones in men the same way you can in women... it's non-hormonal. So, they found a work-around to the problem, essentially.

[sneakeypete 16]

There's a newer pill like treatment out. Its a small rod inserted into body (usually in the upper arm), that releases the hormones at a slow rate. Supposed to last for 3 years. No chance of forgetting to take it, so theoretically its really the 99.9% blocking rate it says it is.

Out of interest, how many people still use a condom when their partner (assuming neither of you have any STD's etc.) is already on the pill?

[Meg 368]

The problem with male versions of the pill is that men don't want to bother putting up with the side effects.  They aren't the ones getting pregnant so they have less motivation.  (Do anyone believe that the guy in the article up top is going regularly take something that gives him bad side effects?)

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

There's a newer pill like treatment out. Its a small rod inserted into body (usually in the upper arm), that releases the hormones at a slow rate. Supposed to last for 3 years. No chance of forgetting to take it, so theoretically its really the 99.9% blocking rate it says it is. quote>

Norplant.  It's been around for a while but is no longer available in the United States.  As I understand it, the manufacturer got tired of the lawsuits even though it never lost one.

Deprovera is in the same neighborhood.  It's a shot given once every three months.   As I recall it didn't pass the USDA tests.

Both forms of contraception are currently being given to women in the "third world".    There is an argument about this.  One side says that, if the drugs are not good enough for Americans, they shouldn't be inflicted on third world women.  The other side says, given the conditions these women live in the do-something-every-day types are not practical.

Out of interest, how many people still use a condom when their partner (assuming neither of you have any STD's etc.) is already on the pill?quote>

Probably not too many.  Which brings up the question of what happens when he goes out and gets an STD.   Is he going to suddenly start wearing a condom?   That is the same thing as admitting he was having sex elsewhere.

I bring this up because I used to share an office with a woman who found herself in exactly that situation.  She thought she was in a monogamous relationship so they weren't using condoms.  Turns out he had other views on the subject of monogamy.   To make a long story short, she died from AIDS.

[mightygoose 92]

i mentioned this either here or elsewhere, pill or no pill, implant or no implant, it is always better to use a condom unless trying to conceive, considering they are available free if you know hwere to look, in the UK anyway, not using them is merely irresponsible

[Duke87 1,070]

It's not that simple, though. Programs attempting to curb STDs and unwanted pregnancies in Africa have run into trouble with attempts to distribute condoms because they're associated with promiscuity. So getting married couples to use them is difficult since bringing it up is taken as implying that someone's being unfaithful.

This is an issue in general eleswhere as well. Trust is a huge part of a marriage. To admit that there's a risk that your partner may have caught an STD is to suggest that they're cheating on you, which in turn is to not trust them. So, it goes something like this:

"Honey, let's use a condom."

"Why? I don't have any STDs and neither do you."

"I know, but just in case."

"'Just in case'!? There is no' just in case'! Where could either of us possibly have caugut one?"

...and that leads nowhere pleasant.

See, this is why matters of romance are complicated. Logically, it makes perfect sense to continue using a condom anyway. Emotionally, you run into trouble with that.

So you end up having to do not the sensible practical thing that works, but the thing makes your partner happy.

Matters of politics suffer from the same problem, actually. Human emotion. It screws everything up.