Author Topic: Eugenics Not Nice  (Read 486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pingnak

Eugenics Not Nice
« on: January 26, 2012, 03:54:42 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-forced-sterilization-20120126,0,2398463.story

Sterilized by North Carolina, she felt raped once more

Elaine Riddick was only 14 when the state decided that she was not capable of mothering children and quietly cauterized her fallopian tubes. The $50,000 now offered to her only makes her angrier.


Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2012, 04:21:33 PM »
From the article

Quote
Between 1929 and 1974, nearly 7,600 people were sterilized under orders from North Carolina's Eugenics Board. Nearly 85% were women or girls, some as young as 10. The state estimates that 1,500 to 2,000 of the victims are still alive.

The board's declared goal was to purify the state's population by weeding out the mentally ill, diseased, feebleminded and others deemed undesirable.

It's like something straight out of Nazi Germany. Adolf would have been proud.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6714
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2012, 04:48:56 PM »
"The past is another country, they do things differently there." The Go-Between by L. P. Hartley.

Quote
Between 1929 and 1974, nearly 7,600 people were sterilized under orders from North Carolina's Eugenics Board. Nearly 85% were women or girls, some as young as 10. The state estimates that 1,500 to 2,000 of the victims are still alive.

The board's declared goal was to purify the state's population by weeding out the mentally ill, diseased, feebleminded and others deemed undesirable.
In 1950, the middle of the period, there was a population of ~500,000, say 250,000 females, of whom, ~60,000 were aged between 15 and 30. The dates are 35 years apart, so 0.3% of the population were so treated annually.

Back in the late 60s, I was a Mental Health social worker. From time to time, the parents of severely subnormal girls (as the children were classed then) would ask if it were possible to sterilise them, as neither they nor the girls could cope with menstruation. Further, on a technicality, as the child would never be able to give informed consent, any intercourse would be rape, and for the same reasons, marriage was not a possibility.

Up to the early 60s, and before I joined, a number of women in the district were locked up in institutions as "moral cretins". These were for the most part women of less than IQ 60 who had an obsession but no understanding of sex.

Before WW2, the boundary was less clear and any girl who behaved in a "lewd and immoral" manner was also locked up. A father could, on application and approval have his daughter locked up, or a court could decide that was the proper thing.

In both cases, sterilisation was an option, either to allow the person to cope or to prevent pregnancy as inmates were male and female at the same institutions.

I note also from the report, "At 18, she married a man she met there. When he discovered she had been sterilized, Riddick says, he abused her, calling her barren and useless. They later divorced."

You might consider that Ms Riddick was not particularly good at choosing partners. The details in the report are very sparse and we do not know what she was like between say 15 and 21.

In my occupation, I met 3 or 4 women who were completely incapable of dealing with children and demonstrated this by producing them at regular intervals and, after the first one or two had been taken into protective care, they were offered sterilisation. If they did not accept, they were watched until they inevitably became pregnant and the child was removed to prevent suffering, malnutrition and diseases of poverty and neglect.

You may think that it wrong to investigate thoroughly those who would adopt a child but allow anyone to have a child naturally, and there may be something in this and anyone who has a reasonable chance of supporting a child should be able to adopt without further ado.

North Carolina made the mistake of coming to the problem by way of eugenics. This is rather a blunt instrument.

It is not a simple question and there are limited resources, children still die of neglect, torture, malnutrition at the hands of their parents.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10414
  • Darwins +185/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2012, 04:51:35 PM »
NC did this?  The southern state that says abortions are murder. HOw did this happen and not make the news?  What % were black?
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline pingnak

Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2012, 05:45:06 PM »
I am with Graybeard on this, as far as treatment and necessity for the truly hopeless cases goes, but sterilization as a treatment for RAPE for an otherwise normal girl is inexcusable.

Unfortunately, I would say that yes, indeed, reversible sterilization would be an excellent option for most people.  If 1% of the 'anti-abortion' political money went into researching THAT, there would be precious little need for abortion at all, ever again.  Give parents the tools to inexpensively disable their kids' reproductive 'equipment', until they're legal adults and can turn it back on.  No worse than cosmetic circumcision.  Both boy AND girl would have to have their equipment 'enabled' to make a baby.

But permanent sterilization is wrong, and this isn't the only example.  The link I posted some days ago about China features both sterilization AND deliberately murdering babies that are born, AND murdering people for organs.  Clean up those pesky natives and make more room for the Han.  Manifest Destiny and all of that, except however they say it in Chinese.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/xinjiang-procedure_610145.html?nopager=1


Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6714
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2012, 06:43:26 PM »
The report is not too clear, but, as I understand it, she was not sterilised as a result of the rape.

You will see that I was speaking of the 60s and earlier. At that time there was no long-term reliable, acceptable and universally applicable contraceptive method[1] By (IIRC) the early 70s, such women were being given 3 month contraceptive devices, and later this became an even more effective and efficient annual affair.

The savagery, as practised by China, really has no place in society.
 1. the coil was not suitable for everyone and the pill is only of use where it is taken regularly and that requires some responsibility.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +114/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2012, 02:27:54 AM »
I don't condone the forced sterilization of people, but I do understand there are a lot of issues in play.  As Graybeard points out things were different then.  I hear all the time about similar suggestions where I work, so I know it's not an uncommon idea.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen some girl essentially destroy any chance for a future for herself because she decided to have (and keep) a child at 16.
Like others, I wish there was a way to keep the equipment with limited functionality until society deems these people capable of making their own decisions.  In my experience irresponsible parents tend to raise irresponsible kids.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2012, 12:38:00 PM »
I don't condone the forced sterilization of people, but I do understand there are a lot of issues in play.  As Graybeard points out things were different then. 

Maybe they should have tried that defense at Nuremburg.

Funny how this kind of thing always appears to be one way. You never read about forced vasectomy's on young metally handicapped males.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +114/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2012, 01:20:42 PM »
What's your point Frank?

Are you going to try to pretend that people around you don't look at a teen mother of 19 who has three or four children and make noises about how she shouldn't be having them?

One of my students, a 16 (maybe 17 now) year old boy has three kids to his name.  Do you think the idea that maybe he shouldn't be able to have them hasn't crossed *somebodies* mind?

This reminds me of a topic that came up a while back, on whether or not we should have mandatory Depo Provera (or some equivalent) shots for girls entering middle school through high school.  I don't have the energy to look through thousands of old posts[1] for it but the argument essentially was that doing so would reduce teen pregnancy by almost a hundred percent, and with it save billions of dollars in the foster care system and untold misery from children being raised in uneducated households.

I don't object to the concept, what I object to is that it's invasive, involuntary and non-reversible.

 1.  and I think it sidetracked into something about homosexual teachers in bikinis or something anyway
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2012, 01:23:28 PM »
The whole "being fit to take care of your offspring" can be a very slippery slope. Due to the choices I have made in my life I am not able to get a high paying job. I have three children and rely on food stamps to supplement my income so I can feed my family. It can be argued that since I am apparently unable to provide for my kids that I am irresponsible and unfit to be a parent.

I continue to try and make improvements so that I can make myself more 'marketable' but it is a slow process and I am already 36. The problem with the well fair system is that it does not help people get out of their rut. For example, If I were to get a better job making $50 more a month over what I am allowed for benefits, I lose ALL my benefits. So, make an extra $50 but lose about $700. Now, if I were to find a job that paid me an extra $800 a month It would be worth my time, anything less than that is not even worth it.

Now consider the single parents who are provided a place to live, day care, health & medical coverage and food stamps. If they got a full time job they would loose half their benefits. Where is the motivation to better themselves? After all, the more kids they have the more benefits they get. 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 01:25:04 PM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2012, 01:42:55 PM »
What's your point Frank?

Are you going to try to pretend that people around you don't look at a teen mother of 19 who has three or four children and make noises about how she shouldn't be having them?

One of my students, a 16 (maybe 17 now) year old boy has three kids to his name.  Do you think the idea that maybe he shouldn't be able to have them hasn't crossed *somebodies* mind?


I'm sure it's crossed a lot of peoples minds. Maybe if they had compulsary sex education (including homeschoolers) whether parents liked it or not then this sort of thing would be considerably reduced and nobody would need be sterilised. It appears to work in other countries so why not where you are?
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2012, 01:44:21 PM »
I'm sure it's crossed a lot of peoples minds. Maybe if they had compulsary sex education (including homeschoolers) whether parents liked it or not then this sort of thing would be considerably reduced and nobody would need be sterilised. It appears to work in other countries so why not where you are?

sex is *spooky voice* TABOOOoooooo
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +114/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2012, 02:41:02 PM »
so why not where you are?

If I had to speculate its because this country has a really fucked up dysfunctional attitude about sex.
I'm sure you've read all about abstinence promotion programs in our schools over here despite the fact that they do nothing to reduce teen pregnancy and statistically have a detrimental effect.  Just an extension of that.

@ jaybwell32,

I understand the slippery slope aspect, but I think that if people pretend other than their actual feelings on the subject they'll wind up sending out mixed signals.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline pingnak

Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2012, 03:57:21 PM »
Another perfectly valid solution to 'teen pregnancy': Adjust society so people are expected to have their rugrats when they're younger, and REQUIRE the grandparents all help raise the kids. 

The parents will of those children in turn have to 'help out' with their own kids' grandkids.  Get them married young and bind the families with a strong social AND legal contract to raise those kids, even as the young parents finish higher education, and/or learn a trade and begin to build a career.  And more mature role models are involved throughout the upbringing, and parents/grandparents might take a more active interest, knowing that they have an extra generation of living with the consequences, if they raise losers.

Being a grandparent should not be about showing up twice a year with a present, and buggering off.

It's healthier to have a 16 year old girl give birth than a 36 year old woman.  For mother and baby.  A million years of natural selection, breeding as young as possible, with lots of family and community support (monkeys on up), followed up by a few decades of breeding as OLD as possible, and being on your own with sole responsibility for 24 hour care of your children, with family spread to the winds and unavailable, and a community that couldn't care less if you're burned alive in a house fire tonight.  I wonder which is healthier and more natural?
http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/fetal_development/article/birth-defects-risks

If you want a GOOD definition of marriage, it's all about raising the kids.  Everything else should depend on THAT.  You're not joining individuals for SEX, you're joining FAMILIES to RAISE CHILDREN.

If you want a 'gay marriage' definition, it's all about raising the adopted or implanted kids.  Identical.

Everything else about marriage hardly matters at all.  Modern society is about selfishness and marriage is inconsiderate of raising the children.  Mommy and daddy are on their own, often hundreds of miles away from the nearest relatives, who probably wouldn't help, even if they could.  Everyone has their OWN problems.  Their OWN rent/mortgage.  Their OWN jobs and bills and responsibilities.  So both mommy and daddy go to work, and the kids are raised by television (and the internet).

In short, the concept of single family dwellings are the core disease that is 'destroying' western civilization, demonstrably REAL family values, etc.  EXTENDED families should generally stay together, and live as close to each other as possible.  Preferably in some kind of communal relationship.

Of course, the hideously energy hungry 'global economy' model, dependent on (mostly depleted) 'cheap oil' isn't helping matters.  The idea that production and consumption should be vastly distant, and centralized is insane.  Because only a few things need to break to make everyone suffer.  But we need to be 'profitable', so we make things so everyone 'needs' a car (or more than one car), everyone 'needs' a house, everyone 'needs' major appliances.  And all of the additional costs to stay apart.

Everyone is expected to do it on their own.  Alone.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2012, 04:50:28 PM »
You have to remember that this happened 42 years ago.  That's why it didn't make the news.

But I agree with Riddick.  Offering a mere $50,000 after the fact is like rubbing salt into the wound.  It's like saying, "we're really sorry for what we did, here's a couple years worth of income so you can make do."

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2012, 04:59:45 PM »
What's your point Frank?

Are you going to try to pretend that people around you don't look at a teen mother of 19 who has three or four children and make noises about how she shouldn't be having them?

One of my students, a 16 (maybe 17 now) year old boy has three kids to his name.  Do you think the idea that maybe he shouldn't be able to have them hasn't crossed *somebodies* mind?

This reminds me of a topic that came up a while back, on whether or not we should have mandatory Depo Provera (or some equivalent) shots for girls entering middle school through high school.  I don't have the energy to look through thousands of old posts[1] for it but the argument essentially was that doing so would reduce teen pregnancy by almost a hundred percent, and with it save billions of dollars in the foster care system and untold misery from children being raised in uneducated households.

I don't object to the concept, what I object to is that it's invasive, involuntary and non-reversible.
 1.  and I think it sidetracked into something about homosexual teachers in bikinis or something anyway
Sperm and egg are requiered for babies,frank was pointing out the obvious that MEN decide to sterilize women,but NOT men
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2012, 05:07:09 PM »
You have to remember that this happened 42 years ago.  That's why it didn't make the news.

But I agree with Riddick.  Offering a mere $50,000 after the fact is like rubbing salt into the wound.  It's like saying, "we're really sorry for what we did, here's a couple years worth of income so you can make do."
In Canada they gave an Arab guy around 10.5 million for allowing him to be deported by the USA to his homeland Syria as a suspected terrorist

Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

Yet for victims like this lady and others like victims of sexual abuse at residential schools are offered pennies compared to this guy....because the crimes were committed years earlier. What makes one persons pain worth 10.5 million and anothers persons only 50K?,,,,,time?

 an exerpt from the residential school settlement

2) A process to allow those
who suffered sexual or
serious physical abuses, or
other abuses that caused
serious psychological
effects, to get between
$5,000 and $275,000
each—or more money if they
can show a loss of income
here is a link to the settlment agreement

http://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/english_index.html

This young lady was only 14 at the time and the residential victims were between 5 and 18 so does age and time play a factor?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 05:20:12 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline pingnak

Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2012, 06:05:00 PM »
Oh well, you may as well ask why Union Carbide pays individuals in America millions when they get 'hurt', but people in Bhopal, India get squat, if that.

The world's unfair.


Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2012, 07:18:19 PM »
Oh well, you may as well ask why Union Carbide pays individuals in America millions when they get 'hurt', but people in Bhopal, India get squat, if that.

The world's unfair.

Union Carbide paid a settlement of $470 million.

That averaged out to $2200 per victim -- a maharajahly sum there.The standard of living is different. 

Why, $2200 is almost the price of a new car[1] there.

Hmmm.  An American car[2] costs $14,000 so that would be like paying $12,300 for an American life.

Oh, well.


 
 1. The 2012 Tata Nano is $2500
 2. 2012 Ford Fiesta S

Offline pingnak

Re: Eugenics Not Nice
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2012, 08:52:25 PM »