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.
Wow, that's just F'ed up that anyone would champion that another person get forcibly sterilized.
Beck and the OP should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm against it. Why don't you read the post first, then comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl
I do believe the OP just got pwned.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
Heck, this is just another Blaze article and another thread from an impressionable youth.
Point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
so once again, faux outrage from the the 16 year old who knows everything.
Yes I do know everything, thank you for noticing. (sarcasm)
There was absolutely no outrage in that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
I agree.
I do not see having a child as a "sacred right"......no matter what.
When someone is permanently, mentally disabled and can never care for a child, I see no problem with the parents or caregivers having them sterilized.
On the one hand, people say they have a right to have a child, on the other hand, they have no problem taking that child away from them the minute they are born.
How can you justify taking a child away from the parent when the parent has never harmed a child? Until that parent HAS harmed a child, don't they have just as much right to keep their child as anyone else?
Isn't it a double standard to on the one hand protect their right to have a child, and then on the other hand automatically take away their right to parent that child?
They are innocent of child neglect or child abuse until they have actually committed the crime.....yet it is justified to presume them guilty before the fact?
Allowing the mentally disabled the right to procreate unrestricted is not good for that person, the child, the caregivers or society.....period.
Society needs to get over this dogma that procreating is a "sacred right".....it isn't. It is nothing more than a biological function.
I'm against it. Why don't you read the post first, then comment.
Huh?
Point?
Yes I do know everything, thank you for noticing. (sarcasm)
There was absolutely no outrage in that post.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous? So you advocate taking children away from their parents because of what those parents may or may not do?
You should go into children's services, somone who can see the future and remove a child from an abusive home before any abuse has even occured would be priceless.
I do not see having a child as a "sacred right"......no matter what.
When someone is permanently, mentally disabled and can never care for a child, I see no problem with the parents or caregivers having them sterilized.
On the one hand, people say they have a right to have a child, on the other hand, they have no problem taking that child away from them the minute they are born.
How can you justify taking a child away from the parent when the parent has never harmed a child? Until that parent HAS harmed a child, don't they have just as much right to keep their child as anyone else?
Isn't it a double standard to on the one hand protect their right to have a child, and then on the other hand automatically take away their right to parent that child?
They are innocent of child neglect or child abuse until they have actually committed the crime.....yet it is justfied to presume them guilty before the fact?
Allowing the mentally disabled the right to procreate unrestricted is not good for that person, the child, the caregivers or society.....period.
Society needs to get over this dogma that procreating is a "sacred right".....it isn't. It is nothing more than a biological function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Ridiculous? So you advocate taking children away from their parents because of what those parents may or may not do?
You should go into children's services, somone who can see the future and remove a child from an abusive home before any abuse has even occurred would be priceless.
For example, do you think people who are mentally disabled and live in group homes should be allowed to have unprotected sex and produce babies just because it feels good and they think it would be fun to have a baby?
Aren't these people now supervised so they cannot have unprotected sex and have babies, even if they want to.....against their will? How is that any different then preventing them from having a baby through sterilization? Either way, they are prevented from doing what they want to do.....their "right" to reproduce is taken away, isn't it? THINK.
Do you really think someone with the intelligence of a six year old, for example, should be allowed to have a baby just because they want one?
Are you ready to fork over your tax dollars to pay for those babies?
Or, do you think we should just let them have all of the babies they want.....and then take them away from them? Yea, that's the humane thing to do.
For example, do you think people who are mentally disabled and live in group homes should be allowed to have unprotected sex and produce babies just because it feels good and they think it would be fun to have a baby?
Well, according to you, people should be able to have sex because it feels good. Whatever makes the woman happy, thats your POV and it should be the same whether they are mentally disabled or not.
Aren't these people now supervised so they cannot have unprotected sex and have babies, even if they want to.....against their will? How is that any different then preventing them from having a baby through sterilization? Either way, they are prevented from doing what they want to do.....their "right" to reproduce is taken away, isn't it? THINK.
I do think! And I have thought about this a lot. I don't, as I have said, believe in sterilization under any circumstances. I think that if a person is so mentally disabled that they have the intelligence of a child, the guardian should watch over them, the same way they do with teenage girls, to make sure that they don't have sex. If they have that intelligence they shouldn't have sex, and they shouldn't have forced sterilization.
Are you ready to fork over your tax dollars to pay for those babies?
There have been cases, usually extreme, where the parent/caretakers have had their children sterilized to make the persons care more manageable and to protect them from pregnancies resulting from rape or molestation (it has happened in hospital settings...don't think it hasn't). I'm ok with it.
Originally Posted by personwhoisaperson;22634492[/COLOR
] {person whoisaperson's comments are in lavender}Well, according to you, people should be able to have sex because it feels good. Whatever makes the woman happy, thats your POV and it should be the same whether they are mentally disabled or not.
Yes, I do believe people should be allowed to have sex just because it feels good. What do you believe? That people should only be allowed to have sex if they are trying to make a baby?
I do think! And I have thought about this a lot. I don't, as I have said, believe in sterilization under any circumstances. I think that if a person is so mentally disabled that they have the intelligence of a child, the guardian should watch over them, the same way they do with teenage girls, to make sure that they don't have sex. If they have that intelligence they shouldn't have sex, and they shouldn't have forced sterilization.
"Watch over them"....isn't that just a nice way of saying you are taking away their right to procreate.....just as sure as if you had them sterilized? Can't you see the flaw in your reasoning here?
As a matter of fact, if you have them sterilized, they could be allowed more freedom, since the caregiver wouldn't have to watch them like a hawk and keep them under lock and key for fear of them getting pregnant. And that includes males too.....you wouldn't have to watch them 24/7 for fear that they could possibly impregnate someone. Better quality of life for the disabled AND their caregivers.
If it happens accidentally, yes.
There would be no accidents if they were sterilized.....period. Why can't you see that sterilization would be best for everyone involved in these kinds of situations?
If you believe procreating is a "God given right".....how can you justify "watching over" someone so they cannot exercise their "God given right"? In practice, isn't the result the same as sterilization?
If "God" didn't want the disabled to have children, why would he have made them capable of having children? Hmmmm? And who are YOU to prevent them from doing so.....by "watching over them".
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.
Until that parent HAS harmed a child, don't they have just as much right to keep their child as anyone else?
