Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
Knox Overstreet
376 Followers
Knox Overstreet
376 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
amyvernonAug 3, 2010
I've never believed in forced sterilization, but if any story could make me support it, this is it.
davidg11Aug 3, 2010
I believe in forced sterilization. Or do we just let monsters breed for eternity?
amyvernonAug 5, 2010
The problem with that is that someone's deciding who's a monster. While I believe there are people who shouldn't have children - such as in this case - giving the power to make that decision to ANY government is a frightening thought.
zenmojoAug 3, 2010
People think of forced sterilization in terms of "birth control." This isn't birth control, this is insanity control.
cfuseAug 4, 2010
More realistically, it's harm minimisation.
For whatever reason, she is incapable of either practising birth control or caring for offspring, whilst that remains the case there isn't any good reason why she couldn't be temporarily sterilised by a hormonal implant. I wouldn't have a problem with that being done involuntarily.
goweigusAug 3, 2010
then you have not seem some much worse stories
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
i say a forced abortion is in order
bdog2g2Aug 4, 2010
think of forced sterilization as nothing more than adding chlorine to the gene pool.
suricouAug 4, 2010
Bring it on. Some people just arn't fit to have children.
We have extensive background checks and psychological profileing to determine if someone is fit to adopt - and yet there are no safeguards at all to determine if someone is fit to raise children before they reproduce themselves. I can see no ethical problem with forced sterilisation of those convicted of child abuse or neglect. It's not a punishment - it's a measure to prevent a future crime.
thoughtsonthisAug 3, 2010
This woman needs psychiatric help, not a new baby!
tyg10Aug 3, 2010
I'll take the baby. I'm not kidding. I agree with AmyVernon that I don't believe in forced sterilization, however....
designerutahAug 3, 2010
She needs psychiatric help and sterilization, and no ability to adopt until she's able to be mentally healthy enough to be responsible parent.
diggduggjoeAug 3, 2010
If you hate getting a big tummy because it makes you look fat, how about not f**king?
I know people hate it when I demand responsibility, but she could easily avoid all the worry about being fat or having fat children by not breeding.
Problem solved. It sounds like she can't even sustain herself, so why is she getting pregnant in the first place. Obviously, she has mental health issues, but she seems coherent enough to understand where babies come from so she could make her insanity so much easier to manage by not getting knocked up.
I pray the kid survives with some form of health. It sounds like she has been starving it while within her womb.
porkfriedriceAug 3, 2010
cut out her uterus and put her to work on the side of the highway
tigeryakAug 3, 2010
I agree her uterus would be better used cleaning up trash on the side of the road.
spacem00seAug 3, 2010
Ever seen the movie "Citizen Ruth"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115906/
Drug abuser (Laura Dern) gets pregnant again, already has 2 kids already taken away from her. She gets arrested for huffing paint and the judge offers her a closed room deal in which if she aborts the child, he'll lower the penalty. While pregnant, she is putting the child in jeopardy by huffing paint, but she technically would not be endangering the life of the child if she aborted it. From there is a black comedy about the pro-life vs pro-choice crowd with Burt Reynolds as the leader of the pro-life movement. Lots of stereotyping going on on both sides.
With this lady, the judge may threaten to take the child away from her, unless she decides to abort it.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Problem number 1: this is her third child, and she's only 21. I don't think social worker supervision is going to be enough for this "mom". Take the baby away and let a loving family adopt!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
No, take this woman's uterus away.
designerutahAug 3, 2010
Do both, just to be safe!
caio6939Aug 3, 2010
Yes because every child put up for adoption finds a lovely home. The world is so good. ^.^
suricouAug 4, 2010
Better to take it's chances with adoption than to be raised by a known negligent mother.
xmike07Aug 3, 2010
Is there really nothing better to report news on today?
bdog2g2Aug 4, 2010
^^
DOUCHE MAKES COMMENT ON DIGG!
More at 11.
shooverAug 3, 2010
Poster child for baby licenses...
tjacquesAug 3, 2010
I hope the kid eats her from the inside!
purkelAug 3, 2010
she'd like that because she'd lose weight...
exinoAug 4, 2010
Wow... good metal song.
exinoAug 4, 2010
Wow... good metal song. Baby kills terrible mother from the womb.
johnomazzAug 3, 2010
steralize that **** already!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Sterilize.
breadfredAug 3, 2010
You are getting dug down for the wrong reason. Not everyone's first language is American English...
cyberdorkAug 4, 2010
But everyone has a spellchecker!
florinAug 3, 2010
As a comment, I only have two words to say:
forced sterilization
godsbongAug 3, 2010
@xmike07 well there was that shooting in Conn. that took 9 lives..soldiers dieing in Iraq/Afghanistan..etc etc.. Unfortunately this is the world we live in and it sucks..
wiseguy1020Aug 3, 2010
The reply button exists for a reason.
godsbongAug 3, 2010
@WiseGuy1020 What I get for posting and working at the same time..
yodaofdarknessAug 3, 2010
Instead of calling it "forced sterilization", call it "court-ordered medical inability to reproduce". It just rolls off the tongue better.
factorof13Aug 3, 2010
I don't know what the commitment laws are like in Washington, but in my state, if a mental health professional believes you to be a danger to yourself or to others, they can have you committed. Scary stuff in theory, but that might be just what this woman needs.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Is it just me or is that "crying" so fake in the video.
strawb411Aug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mandarinAug 3, 2010
What a worthless human being...
THe husband too
jeffwmartinAug 3, 2010
What the f**k is wrong with some people? If this crazy bitch is so worried about being fat, why the f**k does she keep getting pregnant? Someone take away her goddamn uterus.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
It's her right as an autonomous human being to reproduce as she sees fit. No one should be able to tell her she is not allowed to conceive. I pity the children reared, though. It will most likely either die or be taken by the state. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
I guess diggers only care about personal freedom when it's their marijuana being threatened.
eddiepotatoAug 3, 2010
Personal freedom is a double-edged sword.
The moment someone accepts tax-payer assistance in raising their children is the moment they must allow tax-payers to have a say in what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Just like an adult who continues to live off their parents: their house, their money, their rules.
So if someone wants the tax-payers to have no say in their reproductive rights, they must forfeit any and all obligations the tax-payers might have in the welfare of their offspring.
But then, how can a modern, compassionate society reconcile the idea of ignoring abused, starving children on the basis that their parents reserved their right to be so free? Do we really want to live in a country that stands by and lets children starve just because their parents are assh**es?
There are places in the world that operate in just such a way, and not many would consider those countries role models.
kinggeoffAug 3, 2010
It is also your "right" to raise your kids as you see fit. Unless you are deemed UNFIT, in which case this right is revoked.
I'm not saying I'm for, nor against forced sterilization... just connecting some dots
nainsellAug 3, 2010
Rights of reproduction and rights of parenthood are different things. If you are an unfit parent because you have raised your children improperly (in a way that puts them in physical harm or is mentally ABUSIVE) they should be taken away. That is not the same as claiming her biology should be restricted.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
I'm sorry: Rights of reproduction and PRIVILEGE of parenthood are different things.
designerutahAug 3, 2010
Reproduction isn't a right. It's also not a privilege. It's an ability. It's not her "right," just an inherent capacity she was born with that can be lacking due to natural or man-made causes. As to her right to conceive, I think that goes hand-in-hand with her ability to be a parent. If she's unfit and incapable of being a parent, the society she lives in may decide she should not be allowed to conceive. This is the same argument used for detaining criminals and the mentally unstable. If they are not safe, society protects itself by restricting their abilities.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
I disagree, designer, for the simple fact that there is no victim in this woman being pregnant.
jgzmanAug 4, 2010
Not so. The child will most certainly be a victim.
nainsellAug 4, 2010
Keyword being "will". You shouldn't be able to have action taken against you for crimes you have no yet committed.
breadfredAug 3, 2010
Rights come with Responsibilities. Do I need to explain that in greater detail?
nainsellAug 3, 2010
Rights are inherent to existence.
breadfredAug 3, 2010
If you produce a child, you are PERSONALLY responsible it has a good upbringing. I can't afford that, so I don't have any kids. No rights are inherent to existence - you EARN your rights. You are responsible for what you do -may it be laying a brick on the railroad, or producing life.
You are the one f**king. f**king everyone over, that is.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
"No rights are inherent to existence - you EARN your rights."
Bulls**t. You're entitled to your rights through the virtue of being alive and being a human being. They're, I guess you could say, inalienable. I agree you are responsible for what you do. If you fail to raise a child in a safe environment you should either be incarcerated or have your children taken away. However, no government should have the authority to control the autonomous biological functions that do not affect another living being.
The only conceivable way that conceiving would inherently infringe upon the rights of another person (and therefore be subject to legislation or control) would be if you believe that life begins at conception. I do not.
What you're claiming isn't logically consistent with what a free people expect. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
designerutahAug 3, 2010
Nainsell: you're confusing "rights" with capabilities. What is "inherent to existence"? Please list some things you consider to be rights by this definition.
Personally, I think you have abilities, like the ability to breathe, eat, drink, sleep, etc. that all add up to this experience we call life. It's an ability, not a right.
Privileges are earned, things you work for and are granted by someone, such as the privilege to drive.
Rights, are specific privileges the government is restricted from infringing, such as the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech. Neither of these are inherent in your existence. Both were fought for, and granted by, government. Mostly, rights are better defined as abilities the government is not allowed to restrict.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
Designer, any ability of a free people that the government does not have authority over (as per the constitution) is considered a right of the people.
kinggeoffAug 4, 2010
Except that MANY bodies and organization can and do step over those "rights" on a daily basis and completely bypass those rights granted in the constitution.
nainsellAug 4, 2010
And that's a valid argument to make another violation acceptable? That logic alone shows what I mean when I say we must protect each right and freedom as sacred, even if they may have questionable results.
eddiepotatoAug 3, 2010
The moment someone accepts tax-payer assistance in raising their children is the moment they must allow tax-payers to have a say in what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Just like an adult who continues to live off their parents: their house, their money, their rules.
So if someone wants the tax-payers to have no say in their reproductive rights, they must forfeit any and all obligations the tax-payers might have in the welfare of their offspring.
But then, how can a modern, compassionate society reconcile the idea of ignoring abused, starving children on the basis that their parents reserved their right to be so free? Do we really want to live in a country that stands by and lets children starve just because their parents are assh**es?
There are places in the world that operate in just such a way. Would you consider any such nation to a be role model for the US in this regard? Which one?
nainsellAug 3, 2010
I'm not saying it's the best possible scenario. When the government does not have the authority to restrict breeding, then it will either result in the death of the child or the removal from the family -- however, it is in the best interest of the people of the United States to pay taxes used to take care of the child without restricting the biological rights of the mother in order to maintain an orderly yet free society. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eddiepotatoAug 3, 2010
"I'm not saying it's the best possible scenario."
Understood. But what we have now is perhaps the worst possible scenario: tax payers not only don't have a say in how many burdens an unfit mother can dump on them, but unfit mothers are actively REWARDED for having offspring they cannot support, through tax-payer subsidies (welfare).
This system is worse than broken; it's insane.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
13point1Aug 3, 2010
So the taxpayers now get to dictate the lives of anyone depending on government assistance? Do they hand out surveys asking which job we think Lisa A. Homeless should take?
eddiepotatoAug 3, 2010
"So the taxpayers now get to dictate the lives of anyone depending on government assistance?"
If Lisa A. Homeless is being supported by money taken out of your paycheck, would you be cool with her using it to buy a nice new home entertainment system, and some heroin for her and her boyfriend? Very compassionate of you!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
I agree with your viewpoint that it's insane, Eddie, but it's the only system I can think of that balances the well-being of the innocent with protecting the freedoms and rights of citizens while still being logically consistent, so by that virtue doesn't that make it the most just system to implement in the United States?
Taxpayers don't pay for pregnancies. They pay for children who cannot be fed or clothed or housed. There is a significant different there -- moreso than semantics, which it could be mistaken for at first glance. I agree with controlling aspects of an individuals life that are affected by receiving wellfare -- however a pregnancy, if you consider that life does not begin until birth, does not fall under that.
designerutahAug 3, 2010
Naisell: I disagree. There are a lot of things that can be taken away when someone has shown their inability to be trusted with a privilege. For example, driver's license being taken away due to age, blindness, epileptic seizures. Society removes that privilege because of the potential harm to the person or others. This is exactly the same situation. Her privilege to reproduce should be removed in order to protect her possible future children.
nainsellAug 3, 2010
Driving may be the same as raising a family, but it is not the same as the biological process of being pregnant. It is not a privilege granted by a government, conception is a natural ability that people possess from birth and that directly harms no one. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
13point1Aug 4, 2010
EP: Why the obsession with being able to control the lives of other human beings? Wistful for the days when you could preside over a cotton field with a bullwhip in your hand?
strawb411Aug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
eddiepotatoAug 4, 2010
@13point1: Get some class. That's a really ugly thing to say, and totally unwarranted.
That aside, I've expressed no interest whatsoever in the behavior of anyone who's not living life on my dime. And the only reason I'm interested in that is because I've seen with my own eyes (and ears) one too many bums gaming the system; faking illness, sleeping all day, partying all night, all year long, compliments of the government. Some people sincerely need assistance, and should certainly get it, but for every one of them I've seen at least 5 scammers.
Stealing from working people is an outrage even when times are good, but In a state that's billions in the hole, in a country that's trillions in the hole, a party fund for losers is the last thing we need to be paying for right now.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nainsellAug 4, 2010
I suppose it's simply a matter of political difference, then.
13point1Aug 4, 2010
You want to know what is a totally ugly thing to say? That you should have the right to dictate the lives of people living on government assistance. If you want to talk about classless, you can start with your own sick comments.
nainsellAug 4, 2010
I agree, 13. You should not have to make the choice between having food and having rights.
yaglanaAug 3, 2010
Check out that video's awesome full screen mode.
zerocubedAug 3, 2010
"ANYONE can have [a baby], doesn't mean everyone should"
-Chelsea Handler
invictus125Aug 3, 2010
Might as well just let Child Services deliver the baby...
acid_jazzAug 3, 2010
Go to the Nile river, put the baby in a weave basket... and send the child to a better life.
boardthisAug 3, 2010
is dexter around?
arialAug 3, 2010
Wouldn't it be cheaper to go to this bitches house and give a birth control shot?
shroommiAug 3, 2010
She doesn't have a house, she's homeless.
arialAug 3, 2010
Track her down and go to her car board box then.
13point1Aug 3, 2010
If you don't mind that whole "violation of her rights as a human being" thing, I suppose. Try to think of any other scenario in which it is okay to break into a person's house and shoot them up with a substance that most people can't access without a doctor's prescription.
arialAug 3, 2010
I'm all about someones personal rights but when you're popping out kids left and right and refusing to feed them and give the laxatives because they "look fat" and you're baby only gains 1 pound in the two months of their life something has to be done. Why should others have to take care if this bitches mistakes? Not saying kids are a mistake but her mistakes as A HUMAN BEING are a result of others having to take care of her unfed/taken care of kids she keeps having.
13point1Aug 4, 2010
If she happens to be a smoker, stabbing her with a needle full of Depo-Provera could cause her to die. Forced medical intervention is only the appropriate answer if you have an immature mind that can only conceive of coercion and violence.
bylethAug 7, 2010
@13point1: "If she happens to be a smoker, stabbing her with a needle full of Depo-Provera could kill her."
And how exactly would that matter? Would anyone here miss her? I sure as hell wouldn't and I guarantee that nobody else would miss this piece of white trash either. Oh, and "if she happens to be a smoker"... Really? Look at her. She smokes, and probably more than just cigarettes.
I'm sorry, but I deal with too many stupid whiny, self-important losers on a daily basis to even give a single s**t for this worthless slut. Boo f**king hoo, she has a problem. Well, it stopped being HER problem when she started harming her children. I have absolutely no sympathy for her, but I do feel bad for her children who did not chose to be the offspring of this degenerate.
"Forced medical intervention is only the appropriate answer if you have an immature mind that can only conceive of coercion and violence."
So how do you propose we solve this then? Do you want to personally pay for her treatment and for the care of her children? What about others like her? The world population is almost at 7 billion so I don't think sterilizing this bag would harm us any. I have no problem helping others in need, but when they start harming their children... Well, they can burn for all I care.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
After this child is born, it's time to take a rototiller to that bitch's uterus.
purkelAug 3, 2010
kinky.
animeorbAug 4, 2010
or to her head.
ousthouseAug 3, 2010
What's going on in Seattle these days? They've been making the digg front page a lot recently for some really messed up stuff.
woollymittensAug 3, 2010
Idiocracy. That is all.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Welcome to cost-co, I love you.
thetruthbringerAug 3, 2010
Her body, her choice. Until the baby passes through the birth canal, that is.
breadfredAug 3, 2010
She is responsible for any life she brings upon this earth until adulthood. If she cannot provide, she should not create. Really simple.
designerutahAug 3, 2010
Not her body. Someone else's body. Check the DNA... not hers. Partially hers, sure. And breadfred is right. Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Since she has shown she cannot be trusted, and the people most likely affected by her lack are helpless infants, society should step in and remove her ability to reproduce, and any living children too.
krandenAug 3, 2010
You cant cure crazy, she needs to be spayed.
eddiepotatoAug 3, 2010
Ever wonder about the fact that you need to prove you're sane and stable to adopt a pet from the SPCA, but any drug-addled lunatic is free to pop out a human baby?
jessicawintersAug 3, 2010
I think everyone deserves a second chance. We really don't know the whole story of what this poor woman went through. Judge and you will be judged.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shroommiAug 3, 2010
Third chance.
eurynom0sAug 3, 2010
Took the words right out of my mouth...well my fingers but you get the point.
woollymittensAug 3, 2010
7 billion people and rising. Why give a breeder a second chance? We're in dire need of her potential offspring?
wolfecarieAug 3, 2010
shroommi is right this is her THIRD chance and you really cant stake a young childs life on being nice.
faskippyAug 4, 2010
Are you friggin' kidding me??
faskippyAug 4, 2010
I first thought, you gotta be kidding. I thought you were just being sarcastic. But I had to go check out your profile to be sure. Nope. You were serious. LOL! Among your dislikes:
people who don't respect other people's cultures, and French people
Ahhhhhh haaaaa! Honey, I thank you for the laugh and all, but please... do some reading. Not Elle either.
jfox8Aug 3, 2010
Death penalty
tigeryakAug 3, 2010
Please spay and neuter your pets - Bob Barker.
lukas88Aug 3, 2010
Cue tons of mediocre parents judging terrible parent.
zambimaruAug 3, 2010
Can someone please sterilize this bitch.
wolfecarieAug 3, 2010
Did anyone notice in the vid that she was "crying", but there were no tears?
nydwarfAug 3, 2010
Somehow the conservatives will try and pin this whole story on Obama!
designerutahAug 3, 2010
Simply solved. Send her for an abortion, have an "incident" that results in sterilization.
or do a mandated sterilization and tattoo "Sterilized by the State of ... due to inability to responsibly reproduce" on stomach and butt.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
You would probably fit in really well in China. If the USSR was still around that might suit you even more.
tommyrAug 3, 2010
"Static kill" her vagina shut.
thizzlebotAug 3, 2010
Its Idoicracy ;(
4degreesAug 3, 2010
somebody staple her vagina shut!
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
I really wish most of the people in these comments would express their right to remain silent.
whoreableAug 4, 2010
Maybe she has small t**s and can't breastfeed.
abadpersonAug 4, 2010
state sponsored abortion please.
twwixAug 4, 2010
Castrate the f**king moron that keeps knocking her up.
suzannethetigerAug 4, 2010
Every pregnancy is a gift! God has seen fit to give this woman more children, so you all need to stay the hell out of her business.
suricouAug 4, 2010
You forgot the /s. You need it here, because no matter how crazy the statement there will always be someone who would say it honestly.
For example, that is the official position of the 'quiverfull' movement, a Christian organisation which believes that all children are gifts from God and it is every woman's right, duty and divine mandate to have as many children as God sees fit to allow her. Their most famous members are the Dugger family, who now have nineteen children and a twentieth gestating.
lederhosedAug 5, 2010
this is terrifying
kewl4evaAug 7, 2010
f**k her..Literally...But with protection ofcourse !!!!!!
yaputraaditOct 16, 2010
yes,,i think u right.....hhmm...can u share with me,,i hopt this blog can help u http://aboutpregnancy1001.blogspot.com/