Forced Sterlization: A Solution to Health Care Problems?

[Sacramentalist]

goofyjim:

I addressed this already.

Men and women sterillized under my proposed law(s), once repentant and married, would have due opportunity to adopt should they want to have a child in the future. Meanwhile, society cannot risk the addition of more social misfits and economic burderns by those who have already shown themselves incapable of self-control.

No, birth control is still birth control and forbidden by the Church.

Now you’re just being ignorant; this is not about birth control as it is about punishing those who misuse their sexual faculties.

Fr. Hardon’s teaching on this matter is also found in his Catholic Catechism, which bears an imprimiatur. The Magisterium, to my knowledge, has never addressed this matter, and I have seen nothing from any Catholic theologian which defend the notion that sterilizing criminals is intrinsically evil.

 

[Sacramentalist]

What would you suggest, sending anyone who masturbates to prison?

I don’t believe this would be prudent, for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that masturbation does not have the same chronic ill-effects on society as does sexual promiscuity and the procreation of children outside of marriage.

 

[goofyjim]

goofyjim:

I addressed this already.

Men and women sterillized under my proposed law(s), once repentant and married, would have due opportunity to adopt should they want to have a child in the future. Meanwhile, society cannot risk the addition of more social misfits and economic burderns by those who have already shown themselves incapable of self-control.

Now you’re just being ignorant; this is not about birth control as it is about punishing those who misuse their sexual faculties.

Fr. Hardon’s teaching on this matter is also found in his Catholic Catechism, which bears an imprimiatur. The Magisterium, to my knowledge, has never addressed this matter, and I have seen nothing from any Catholic theologian which defend the notion that sterilizing criminals is intrinsically evil.

I’m sure Fr. Hardon would not consider children out of wedlock a criminal offense. And his Catechism is not the official Catechism authorized by the Vatican. Once this was put in place all others had to then conform to it. With all due respect to Fr. Hardon he should have checked the quote from Pope Pius XI mentioned earlier dismissing all forms of compulsory sterilization.

There are other ways to help reduce children out of wedlock, like not give welfare benefits when they don’t get it right the first time. The life of poverty may then be the natural consequence they face or even having to give it up for adoption. Church teaching has never said you can criminalize all forms of sexual immorality. Otherwise we would end up locking all of ourselves and throwing away the key.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t believe this would be prudent, for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that masturbation does not have the same chronic ill-effects on society as does sexual promiscuity and the procreation of children outside of marriage.

Have you read any of the threads on this in the Moral Theology forum? Or Theology of the Body?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am submitting the Chlorine in the Gene Pool Act, which requires that anyone advocating the involuntarily sterilization of others be immediately involuntarily sterilized himself.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Make it a crime to have more than one child our of wedlock; as a punitive measure, any man or woman who has their second child out of wedlock must undergo compulsory sterilization.

What about multiple births? And what about those who had their children because of rape?

 

[Sacramentalist]

GoofyJim:

Fr. Hardon (a candidate for sainthood) was 100% orthodox, and the quote from Pius XI *did not *condemn the involuntary sterilization of criminals, but rather eugenics.

As to whether a particular vice ought to be criminalized, that is always a matter of prudential judgment.

Goth:

I already noted an exception for rape; I had not considered multiple births, but I suppose under the proposed law I suppose we could count multiple-pregnancies as single pregnancies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

GoofyJim:

Fr. Hardon (a candidate for sainthood) was 100% orthodox, and the quote from Pius XI *did not *condemn the involuntary sterilization of criminals, but rather eugenics.

As to whether a particular vice ought to be criminalized, that is always a matter of prudential judgment.

Goth:

I already noted an exception for rape; I had not considered multiple births, but I suppose under the proposed law I suppose we could count multiple-pregnancies as single pregnancies.

Under the law I propose, we could enter this post into evidence.

 

[rayne89]

Forced sterlization for people that have sex out of wedlock? Sterlization for more than one child. Do you realize that would sky rocket the abortion rate? No one in their right mind would approve such a measure. I can’t believe that a Catholic would even propose such a thing. Denying people health because they are smokers?
There aren’t even words to express how disgusting and unchristian I think these ideas are.

 

[quiet52]

1st part of my post:

Sterilization and contraception are morally objectionable – see Section 2399 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Just as Catholics are bound to stand against legal abortions, we are to stand against the legality of contraception and sterilization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacramentalist
Premarital sex is itself contrary to the natural law, and has demonstrable debilitating effects on society as a whole, and children in particular. The state has a vested interest in both preserving the sanctity of life and in curbing reckless premarital sexual activity. *

So have you lobbied lately for abstinence education in the schools to be state-funded, as sex education is state-funded?

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacramentalist
I should mody #1 to include anyone who incurs pregnancy, not merely has the child. Even if (God forbid!) we keep abortion legal, I think the state has moral justification for inflicting forced sterilization on a person who incurs/causes their second out-of-wedlock pregnancy. *

It’s so hard for me to believe that a practicing Christian would seriously wish this violent act upon anyone. Read Sextion 2372 of the CCC.

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacramentalist
Also, it’s not true that “we cannot criminalize having children out of wedlock”. You most certainly can, and for the same reasons we can criminalize any other act. *

Great – kids whose parents slipped up will not only be considered “bastards” again – but “those criminal bastards – those products of sin.” How loving …not. : (

Under a system such as I propose, anhy doctor treating a single woman who is pregnant would have to enter her name into a national registry (the same way cops can pull up a record from your driver’s license when they pull over your car). When her second pregnancy is recorded, even if she aborted the first, she would be punished by loss of her generative function. This is not simply birth control; it is punishment for the deliberate misuse of one’s genitals.

 

[quiet52]

2nd part of my post:

When you see these single, trampy women on talk shows and other venues who have so many kids they can’t count, why shouldn’t they be punished for their reckless behavior by having their generative functions taken from them?

Of course with in this punitive system, women would be considered the commiters of the “crime” – man, this is worse than China’s system of enforcement due to their “one-child” policy. Men, on the other hand, well, could have sex outside of marriage with no repercussions.

You know what, Sacramentalist, I’ve lied – but I am a truthful person 99.9% of the time. I’ve caved in to the temptation to be rude, but I’m a very nice and well-respected person. A person who loses self-control and sins is forever a “tramp” in your eyes? Of course, only if a woman, not a man, right? You sure seem to like casting stones. Read Section 2342 of the CCC.

Meanwhile, society cannot risk the addition of more social misfits and economic burderns by those who have already shown themselves incapable of self-control.

Man oh man. How uncharitable of heart you are, Sacramentalist. So children are “social misfits” and “burdens” if their parents have committed sexual sin, and not gifts from God?? And how is society to determine who’s “incapable” of self-control, vs. those who are?

There are other ways to help reduce children out of wedlock, like not give welfare benefits when they don’t get it right the first time.

First of all, there are many, many “welfare” families whose needs do not stem from extra-marital sex. Bad things happen – no matter what the sexual morality or marital state of the parents are. So children born out of wedlock are to be punished by the government for the “crime” of their parents?

All this having been said, I’m all in favor of alternate solutions which would be just as effective as what I propose here.

“Love one another as I have loved you.”
Zacchaeus, the Samaritan woman at the well, and others who met Jesus rejoiced when they encountered Him – they certainly didn’t feel devalued. God has mercy for all of us sinners. Their hearts were transformed because of His love … and He wants us to love others in the same way.
Both scripture and the CCC * speaks of each Christian’s responsibility to care for “the young, the old, the sick, the handicapped, and the poor. There are many families who are at times incapable of providing this help. It devolves then on other persons, other families, and, in a subsidiary way, society to provide for their needs…” (section 2208 of the CCC*). As far as your remedies are concerned, Section 2242 tells us “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the dierctives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel…”

Get off that judgment seat of yours, Sacramentalist. Your “remedies” are degrading and your post sickens me. I hope you’re not just yanking our chains to motivate us to do your school paper for you. FONT]

 

[mapleoak]

1. Make it a crime to have more than one child our of wedlock; as a punitive measure, any man or woman who has their second child out of wedlock must undergo compulsory sterilization. (Perhaps the wealthy can be given the option of paying a heft fine instead . . .)

How sad indeed, that having a child would be considered a sin or a crime worthy of punishment. A child is a blessing from God, no matter the circumstances surrounding the child’s conception. Having the child is never wrong. In fact it is the highest blessing ones parents can bestow on that child to allow it to live and be born.
Most certainly, if it became a crime to have a child…Roe v. Wade made compulsory.
Funny also where the second child is the suggested criteria. Why not the first, why not the third? Also does this mean a man who has two children or a woman who has two children? If a woman, does this mean the second child is killed (aborted) and then the woman sterilized? Or wait until the woman gives birth (thereby committing a crime) and then sterilize her? If she aborts on her own, is she innocent?

Again, how sad indeed. Pray for God’s mercy on our culture of death.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How sad indeed, that having a child would be considered a sin or a crime worthy of punishment. A child is a blessing from God, no matter the circumstances surrounding the child’s conception. Having the child is never wrong. In fact it is the highest blessing ones parents can bestow on that child to allow it to live and be born.
Most certainly, if it became a crime to have a child…Roe v. Wade made compulsory.
Funny also where the second child is the suggested criteria. Why not the first, why not the third? Also does this mean a man who has two children or a woman who has two children? If a woman, does this mean the second child is killed (aborted) and then the woman sterilized? Or wait until the woman gives birth (thereby committing a crime) and then sterilize her? If she aborts on her own, is she innocent?

Again, how sad indeed. Pray for God’s mercy on our culture of death.

You think this is bad?

Over in another thread there’s a guy who’s an apologist for Hitler, telling the rest of us how Hitler loved children and dogs, and how he was under so much pressure, what with the war and the drugs he was taking and . . . :whacky:

 

[goofyjim]

You think this is bad?

Over in another thread there’s a guy who’s an apologist for Hitler, telling the rest of us how Hitler loved children and dogs, and how he was under so much pressure, what with the war and the drugs he was taking and . . . :whacky:

I’m glad to see we agree on some things.

 

[mapleoak]

Let the mud-slinging begin . . . !

Okay, this should be fun…

The problem, rather, is those who can’t keep their damn legs closed, and expect the rest of the country to bear the brunt of the burden they have placed on society (and their children) by their own immoral, irresponsible sexual behavior.

No, the problem is the decline in morality, the loss of respect for life, the general irreverence due the sacarament of marriage in society, and above all, the loss of respect for God in our world.

The root to any health care crisis we have is moral at its root. Economic means cannot and will not resolve it; at most, it will be mere window dressing.

I have no idea what this means.

Unfortunately, it’s ultimately the child who suffers from the irresponsibilities of his parents; so, what are we to do?

How about raising our children to be responsible people. If people are responsible as children, they tend to also be responsible when they become adults, who tend to raise reponsible children. What are you suggesting be done? Yes, unfortunately a child suffers from irresponsible parents. What is your solution? Abortion? If they are not born, they can’t suffer at their parents hand, right? Insulting indeed. What criteria would you say is determinant in whether the 5 year old kid down the street should have been aborted rather than to endure suffering in life.

I do not believe that socialized medicine is the solution.

Interesting!!! More on this below.

The troubles with that solution have been meticulously documented. I’m not so sure what the answer is

This is quite clear.

but here’s what I think a “comprehensive solution” should entail:

Oh, you do know the answer?

1. Make it a crime to have…

This ‘solution’ lamented about in previous post.

1. Castrate all rapists, and punitively sterilize repeat prison offenders who have shown by their criminal conduct that they cannot be trusted to handle the demands of parenthood.

That makes a lot of sense, remove all possibility of them conceiving children? That should turn them into nice people, right. Likely this would result in the opposite of the intended effect. Also, how many rapists do you know that can be trusted to handle the demands of parenthood, or who would even care to handle the demands of parenthood?

If any of the above manage to turn their lives around after their sterlization, and still wish to have children, they can adopt.

Rapist turned nice person now trusted to adopt. What criteria do we use? If the castrated man or woman is nice for a year, they can now adopt?

1. The government can provide various incentives (tax breaks, etc.) to doctors, nurses, and hospitals to provide pro bono medical work for those who would die without it.

Change your mind about socialized medicine?

1. Exclude from any and all government aid those who are personally responsible for their sicknesses. Habitual smokers, for instance, should be automatically disqualified from receiving government aid for health care.

This contradicts number three. Change you mind again? If a smoker were in danger of death and had no way to pay for life saving measures, you would deny such measures?

1. Pass laws making which would beef-up compulsory education in medical ethics for those who would practice medicine in this country.

and whose ethical standards are you refering to?

Educate doctors on why they have a moral obligation not to turn away a patient who would die without their services.

Except smokers of course.

Students who will not conform with these ethical standards should be disqualified from practicing medicine.

I vaguely remember doctors use to take an oath of ethics.

Just for starters . . .

Oh, no. I hope there’s not more. That was plenty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m glad to see we agree on some things.

There’s not much we really disagree on, Jim – once you get over the idea I’m a right wing fanatic.

 

[Sacramentalist]

quiet52:

You really ought to keep yourself quiet when you show yourself to not have the vaguest comprehension of the questions at hand.

There are some on this thread who have given intelligent objections to my proposals; but they absolutely cannot be objected to on the grounds that forced sterilization is always a sin.

It isn’t.

The State does have a right to forcefully sterilize criminals as a punitive act. There’s no denying this.

To the others:

I don’t see how this would encourage more abortions. My proposed laws address the first and second pregnancies, not per se the first and second births. And so the person getting the abortion still has her pregnancy marked against her.

So children are “social misfits” and “burdens” if their parents have committed sexual sin, and not gifts from God??

I believe children born out of wedlock need to be loved and cared for as the children of God they are.

Meanwhile, their uncontrollable parents (both mother and father) should be made to pay for their repeated irresponsibilities.

Love the sinner, punish the sinner, and love the child who was conceived through a sinful act.

Sounds perfectly Christian to me.

And guess what? My proposed law imposes nothing on anyone. You don’t want to be sterilized? Wait till you’re married before you have your second child!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t see how this would encourage more abortions. My proposed laws address the first and second pregnancies, not per se the first and second births. And so the person getting the abortion still has her pregnancy marked against her.

Riiiiight. A girl learns she’s pregnant and runs right to the authorities so they can sterilize her. That’ll happen!!

But not on this planet. What she’ll do in the real world is run right to the abortionist, and the authorities will be none the wiser.

I believe children born out of wedlock need to be loved and cared for as the children of God they are.

Loved and cared for as the children of God they are, then held down screaming and forcibly sterilized.

 

[didymus]

i would never live in a country that legally and forcefully sterilizes anyone!! Its bad enough that people can choose to kill their own babies. I found the whole article sickening!

You live in a country that has forcibly sterilised “defective” citizens. See Edwin Black’s book The War Against the Weak. From the website:

In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.

How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.

Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many   never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include   America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

This was still going on when I was born in 1957, so if I had been born in a state where they lumped epileptics in with “the feeble-minded”, who knows?

Forced sterilisation, even as punishment for a crime is wrong. Another side of that coin, though is that imprisonment is itself a form of sterilisation.

 

[sosayi1960]

Dear gang:

I recently posted this on an email discussion list for a Constitutional Law class I am taking. The class, needless to say, is dominated by liberal Democrats, and we were debating (though I don’t quite know whether I can dignify it with that word) Michael Moore’s Sicko, and the problems with the American health care system; some in the class are calling for socialized medicine and universal health care.

The following was my response to a man who said that Republicans hate children:

Thoughts?

Yes, there should be forced sterilization. The state has a compelling interest. If women’s reproductive organs are going to be regulated by state and federal law. The same must apply to men.
Sperm is just another bodily function. It will decrease unwanted pregnancy. It is a right of society to protect itself. It is also a right to curtail the amount of children. The church has no business dictating it’s teaching to each state or the federal government. Couples who choose to have more than 3 children should be penalized. It’s selfish of couples who breed like rabbits and assume no responsibility for the rest of society.