Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, mentally ill people should not be sterilized. There is no proof it is genetic.
I advise you educate yourself a little on the genetic correlation of mental illnesses. While most mental illnesses aren't guaranteed to exist by a simple gene, many genes greatly increase the susceptability of a person towards developing the disease. Such as Schizophrenia, bi-polar, and even simple things like alcoholism.
The violent criminals, especially multiple offenders and those harming women and/or children,
should be euthenized like the vermin they are. Sterilization is not needed if they are dust.
I think most people in this thread misunderstood my goal in beginning this thread. This thread was not intended to be a debate on the methods in which we should employ to deal with or punish violent criminals.
It was intended to be a debate on whether or not elimating the ability for violent criminals and the mentally ill to procreate, would be in the publics best-interest. By helping to eliminate negative genes from the gene pool of this country, thusly promoting a less violent and more stable environment for future generations through what amounts to a eugenics/genetic engineering program.
it will take a lot b4 we start doing that.
we are at opposite ends of the pole from 3rd reich. the moral majority ran things there and practiced social engineering to breed out all weakness. we practice social engineering too but we are controlled and dominated by the lesser elements of our society and openly promote weakness and flaws. having a disabled under privileged child or an underachiever is a badge of pride for many. winners are suppressed and considered a reproach to those that have them as kids. they are usually shamed by their classmates and the schools for making the people on the bottom look bad.
I advise you educate yourself a little on the genetic correlation of mental illnesses. While most mental illnesses aren't guaranteed to exist by a simple gene, many genes greatly increase the susceptability of a person towards developing the disease. Such as Schizophrenia, bi-polar, and even simple things like alcoholism.
I think most people in this thread misunderstood my goal in beginning this thread. This thread was not intended to be a debate on the methods in which we should employ to deal with or punish violent criminals.
It was intended to be a debate on whether or not elimating the ability for violent criminals and the mentally ill to procreate, would be in the publics best-interest. By helping to eliminate negative genes from the gene pool of this country, thusly promoting a less violent and more stable environment for future generations through what amounts to a eugenics/genetic engineering program.
Hitler had the same ideas. It was evil then. It is evil now.
They already have "chemical castration" that i'm not sure is mandated for repeat offenders, or they do it voluntarily for reduced sentences.
Mandating it for the mentally ill is a very tough thing to determine how bad the illness is, is it temporary, are they just not getting proper treatment,..etc so that would be too extreme IMO
For repeat sex offenders, or once involved in a horrific sexual offense should be required by law to get the chemical castration.
The biggest issue would be the welfare recipients. It should be law to be drug tested, as well as mandatory birth control, though a more realistic option would be to offer slightly more benefits to the welfare if they agree to go on birth control. Also benefits should be limited to only two children as dependents.
Hitler had the same ideas. It was evil then. It is evil now.
It is both evil and the greatest good that could ever exist.
Look at it like this, I don't like that there are sexual predators that stalk the young, either on city streets or on the internet. I don't like the idea of murders, or robberies, or rapes, or assaults. Child abuse, wife-abuse, etc, etc.
Why do these things happen? Do you really think people only get angry because they see other people get angry? Do you really think men only abuse their wives because they are taught to?
Why is it that in every society, even the most conservative and moral society, these terrible blights of humanity have existed. You can teach people to do good, but you are trying to go against their nature. And when you go against nature, you cannot win.
If you knew you could eliminate rape and murder, would you? Would a temporary evil be worth the long-term good?
Violence and impulsivity is undoubtedly genetically encoded within you. This is largely why men commit crimes at around 10 times the rate women commit crimes.
Otherwise no one should be forced into sterilization but it should be mandatory in order to receive welfare handouts.
^^^^^^^ THIS!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68
They already have "chemical castration" that i'm not sure is mandated for repeat offenders, or they do it voluntarily for reduced sentences.
Mandating it for the mentally ill is a very tough thing to determine how bad the illness is, is it temporary, are they just not getting proper treatment,..etc so that would be too extreme IMO
For repeat sex offenders, or once involved in a horrific sexual offense should be required by law to get the chemical castration.
Chemical castration is not castration per se. They just take meds that reduce the libido. Discontinue the meds, and the libido comes back. For rapists and child molesters, we need surgical castration. That way, you permanently prevent them from raping anyone else, ever.
I don't like them either. That's why we should eliminate death row,
by eliminating all those on death row. Sexual Predators, especially
the violent ones, 99.95% unable to be rehabilitated. Eliminate also.
I advise you educate yourself a little on the genetic correlation of mental illnesses. While most mental illnesses aren't guaranteed to exist by a simple gene, many genes greatly increase the susceptability of a person towards developing the disease. Such as Schizophrenia, bi-polar, and even simple things like alcoholism.
I think most people in this thread misunderstood my goal in beginning this thread. This thread was not intended to be a debate on the methods in which we should employ to deal with or punish violent criminals.
It was intended to be a debate on whether or not elimating the ability for violent criminals and the mentally ill to procreate, would be in the publics best-interest. By helping to eliminate negative genes from the gene pool of this country, thusly promoting a less violent and more stable environment for future generations through what amounts to a eugenics/genetic engineering program.
For one where would you draw the line? Could someone with an IQ of 70 have children but someone with an IQ be forcefully sterilized?
Some alcoholics still manage to hold down a job - and they can decide not to drink, but also many children of alcoholics don't drink.
Mental illness is another one - where do you draw the line? What about so-called Aspergers autism? Can they reproduce? Or those who grew up on ritalin because they were diagnosed with ADD?
I think it's too dangerous to just use IQ scores and psychological diagnoses.
It would be easy enough to require that someone seeking welfare handouts agree to be sterilized. That way there is no force, as no one is forced to live on welfare handouts.
Another way would be to offer a one time cash handout - something like $200 or $400 in exchange for sterilization and many drug addicts would gladly take the money.
Child rapists should be surgically castrated so that would take them out of the gene pool.
it will take a lot b4 we start doing that.
we are at opposite ends of the pole from 3rd reich. the moral majority ran things there and practiced social engineering to breed out all weakness. we practice social engineering too but we are controlled and dominated by the lesser elements of our society and openly promote weakness and flaws. having a disabled under privileged child or an underachiever is a badge of pride for many. winners are suppressed and considered a reproach to those that have them as kids. they are usually shamed by their classmates and the schools for making the people on the bottom look bad.
I don't think it's having the disabled child that is the badge of honor. It is raising the child to be the best they can be that is looked upon positively.
I don't know where you are getting this whole successful child is a bad thing from. I think most parents still hope that their child can go to the best college and get a high paying job.
Redshadowz, if it just ended with violence, I could almost agree with you, but you know that people would manipulate the policies for their own personal gain.
It was intended to be a debate on whether or not elimating the ability for violent criminals and the mentally ill to procreate, would be in the publics best-interest. By helping to eliminate negative genes from the gene pool of this country, thusly promoting a less violent and more stable environment for future generations through what amounts to a eugenics/genetic engineering program.
Tread lightly my friend... do you really want to open Pandora's box? This is the kind of thought that motivated the Nazis and led to the holocaust. We all know how that turned out.
At the outset eugenics sounds like a good idea, but then who decides what traits are desirable and which are not? And where do we draw the line? The irony is that this kind of thinking can actually lead to a less vigorous population due to the loss of genetic diversity inherent in an ever narrowing gene pool. We don't know enough about what combinations of genes it takes to produce a Leonardo da vinci versus a Charles Manson. Imagine denying the world the next Einstein. There is a fine line between genius and madness as they say.
As for violent criminals that have been proven to be psychopathic via standardized psychological tests and brain scans I would venture to say that sterilization might be a good idea, but such procedures should be subject to strict protocols.
It gets a bit trickier when it comes to the merely mentally ill. What types of mental illness should warrant sterilization? I myself suffer from depression and anxiety, however I'm an otherwise law abiding productive member of society and as such I find the prospect of potential sterilization particularly abhorent. Also, my grandmother was schizophrenic, but my mother was perfectly healthy with an above average IQ to boot.
I assume that the OP had in mind only extreme cases of serious mental illness, but I'm going to have to invoke the cliche' "slippery slope" argument in this case. Surely any reasonable person can see how messy this could get. Pandora's box indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
