abcnews.go.com— A City Council member, reacting to a video store holdup believed to have been carried out by children, says parents who can't properly care for their kids should be sterilized.
Oct 1, 2006View in Crawl 4
As I am not a parent, with the exception of pets, my view may be a little skewed in favor of this. However I know of plenty of parents, my own included, that would advocate an extreme measure like this. If you, as a parent, can not raise your child(ren) properly and instill good moral and ethical values in them, you have NO business being a parent. Irresponsible parents are no longer "parents", they're "breeders".My .02¢
I used to think that way. People who can't put aside the time to teach their kids shouldn't have kids. Unfortunately, it's rarely that simple. A necessary part of good parenting is having the time and energy to spend with your children. The problem is that many Americans couples have to have full time jobs, leaving little time and energy for their children. Perhaps families need to learn how to spend less and allow one of the parents to not work full time. Or perhaps we can equalize the income gap. I work for an investment firm and the partners' wives don't work and stay home to take care fo the family. Their children are incredibly fortunate and many have turned out well. In any case, I am hesitant to blame just the parents for this. That is not to say there aren't bad parents but we should also consider circumstances before jumping to conclusions. Otherwise we end up allowing only wealthy to breed. I guess that's one way to cut down on poverty...
nature also made it so that the blind, mentally retarded, and physically handicapped would be killed and eaten by wildlife. we overcame nature, maybe it is time to overcome nature once again. at the same time we will be doing a service to our overpopulated planet. personally, i wish we had a reversible way of sterilizing people. make people prove they are fit to be parents (financially and emotionally) before allowing them to. we make people show they can responsibly operate a car (emotional) and prove they have insurance (financial) before we allow them on the streets. how much damage can one car do ? now think of the damage that messed up kids do, they become messed up adults, at the same time they are more likely to have lots of kids, and the cycle continues. as each generation has more kids it grows exponentially, and suddenly that one troubled kid has spawned hundreds of great grand troubled children.
@ DM - it should be pointed out that if there are no absolute moral rules, that you cannot fairly condemn the holocaust.Sometimes, it is necessary to impose my morals on others.
While this is going too far, I do feel that if you need a damn license to drive a car, you should also need a license to raise kids (that needs to be renewed every 4 years). There are some simple things people can do to raise their kids right and just don't because of ignorance or because they were raised the wrong way too... watch supernanny or nanny 911 a couple of times and you will see what I mean. There is a common thread among the mistakes people make...
Yeah, if you go back to the stone age but we haven't been there for a long time and we have done fine without sterilization since then. We have had societies for a couple thousand years, I think your 'wild animal' argument only works if you forget the last couple of thousand years.
U.S. English keyboards don't have the cents symbol. Seems to be relevant to the "intellectual fat cat" line of reasoning. Either you are posting out of the U.S. on an U.S. originating article, went to the trouble to get a special keyboard with that symbol, or have an equally elusive method of entering it, (ALT + (neumeric kepad, for one).
@ LillitouI truly sympathize with the kids that have to be taken care of by the state while waiting to be put into foster homes. They are in sore need of good parents. However, who do you think pays for the care of these kids? If you say "The state", you're only part correct; it's our tax money that ultimately pays for these kids care, among other things (like prisons!). Harry's comment was spot on; no one forced the mothers to be mothers (except in cases of rape). That said, I don't think sterilization of men would work, but I could be wrong. I think it would just give men more incentive to screw around and treat women like playthings instead of the fellow human beings that they are.
The words "reproductive freedom" are a classic example of a noble concept gone horribly awry. Before I make my point and piss people off -- which I'm sure I will -- let me point out that I am staunchly pro-choice in matters of abortion, and an avid supporter of women's rights. I don't think there is a single instance in which a woman should be forced to have a child against her will, but I can think of many good reasons to force a woman not to have children.Americans are obsessed with the notion that procreation is a divine right never to be infringed upon by anyone for any reason. This means that a homeless crack addict should have the inalienable right to bear as many children as biology will allow, and damn the consequences to whatever children are unlucky enough to be conceived under such circumstances. Those eggs shoulda ducked when they saw the sperm coming, so really the impertinent brats brought that misery on themselves, don't you think?All sarcasm aside, does anyone care about the abject misery in which hundreds of thousands of children are living, simply because no one dares to poke the hornet's nest and question the "reproductive freedom" of irresponsible men and women? I'm not talking about mere poverty -- many a happy child has been raised by loving, responsible parent(s) without two nickels to rub together. In fact, I'd bet that lots of families are brought closer together by the lack of material trappings which forces them to (ack!) spend time together instead of retreating to their separate electronic entertainments after a few civil grunts.No, money is not the issue here, although somebody somewhere will bring up the almighty dollar. (Wait and see.) I'm talking about parents who abuse their children in any of the infinite ways this sacred bond can be profaned. Children are routinely beaten, raped, used as slaves and "cash cows" to manipulate the system, and generally made to feel as if they're worthless. Except for the momentary swell of pity from those who hear of their suffering, they basically are. I mean, really -- who gives a s**t? Not the parents, or else they would think suffering to be an early bedtime or loss of TV priveleges. The "system" doesn't care, as evidenced by the appalling state of Child Protective Services and foster care at large. Even the socially conscious only pay lip service, because they're clearly more concerned with the rights of abusers to have as many children as they please. After all, isn't freedom more important than consequence?Back to the horse I'm laboriously beating to death here, I think that reproduction is not a right, but a sacred responsibility that (Let's face the ugly truth, folks!) some people are just not ready for and may never be. Some measure should be taken to curtail the breeding of those who have proven themselves to be bad parents. These measures should not be gender-specific, so you feminists can let out that breath you were planning to howl in rage with. Deadbeat dads should be rounded up and herded to the nearest vasectomy clinic. The procedure will cost the taxpayer much less than even one more child raised by the system. Women with three or more children and no legal means of independently supporting them (with or without a partner's help) should be sterilized. Anyone who abuses a child in an unambiguous way (meaning that more harm was caused than a dirty house and the lack of a new Gameboy) should have their parental rights revoked. All of them.Here's where my idea takes a few hits. "If we allow the government the right to decide who gets to have children, before long they'll start restricting the poor, the stupid, the ugly..." Etc. This is a valid concern, but we shouldn't let the potential for corruption overshadow the protection of the innocent. Should we really disregard perfectly humane and logical concepts because someday, somewhere, somebody might take the idea too far? If that's the case, why do we allow the government to make laws at all?To me, the issue is not about the adults who squabble over freedom and rights. It's about the children who've been afforded neither to appease the idea of the almighty uterus.
chrisw357Oct 1, 2006
As I am not a parent, with the exception of pets, my view may be a little skewed in favor of this. However I know of plenty of parents, my own included, that would advocate an extreme measure like this. If you, as a parent, can not raise your child(ren) properly and instill good moral and ethical values in them, you have NO business being a parent. Irresponsible parents are no longer "parents", they're "breeders".My .02¢
Closed AccountOct 1, 2006
I used to think that way. People who can't put aside the time to teach their kids shouldn't have kids. Unfortunately, it's rarely that simple. A necessary part of good parenting is having the time and energy to spend with your children. The problem is that many Americans couples have to have full time jobs, leaving little time and energy for their children. Perhaps families need to learn how to spend less and allow one of the parents to not work full time. Or perhaps we can equalize the income gap. I work for an investment firm and the partners' wives don't work and stay home to take care fo the family. Their children are incredibly fortunate and many have turned out well. In any case, I am hesitant to blame just the parents for this. That is not to say there aren't bad parents but we should also consider circumstances before jumping to conclusions. Otherwise we end up allowing only wealthy to breed. I guess that's one way to cut down on poverty...
qwertydvorakOct 2, 2006
nature also made it so that the blind, mentally retarded, and physically handicapped would be killed and eaten by wildlife. we overcame nature, maybe it is time to overcome nature once again. at the same time we will be doing a service to our overpopulated planet. personally, i wish we had a reversible way of sterilizing people. make people prove they are fit to be parents (financially and emotionally) before allowing them to. we make people show they can responsibly operate a car (emotional) and prove they have insurance (financial) before we allow them on the streets. how much damage can one car do ? now think of the damage that messed up kids do, they become messed up adults, at the same time they are more likely to have lots of kids, and the cycle continues. as each generation has more kids it grows exponentially, and suddenly that one troubled kid has spawned hundreds of great grand troubled children.
jgzmanOct 2, 2006
@ DM - it should be pointed out that if there are no absolute moral rules, that you cannot fairly condemn the holocaust.Sometimes, it is necessary to impose my morals on others.
carlosglzOct 2, 2006
While this is going too far, I do feel that if you need a damn license to drive a car, you should also need a license to raise kids (that needs to be renewed every 4 years). There are some simple things people can do to raise their kids right and just don't because of ignorance or because they were raised the wrong way too... watch supernanny or nanny 911 a couple of times and you will see what I mean. There is a common thread among the mistakes people make...
rlh68Oct 2, 2006
Yeah, if you go back to the stone age but we haven't been there for a long time and we have done fine without sterilization since then. We have had societies for a couple thousand years, I think your 'wild animal' argument only works if you forget the last couple of thousand years.
hackwrenchOct 2, 2006
U.S. English keyboards don't have the cents symbol. Seems to be relevant to the "intellectual fat cat" line of reasoning. Either you are posting out of the U.S. on an U.S. originating article, went to the trouble to get a special keyboard with that symbol, or have an equally elusive method of entering it, (ALT + (neumeric kepad, for one).
chrisw357Oct 3, 2006
@ LillitouI truly sympathize with the kids that have to be taken care of by the state while waiting to be put into foster homes. They are in sore need of good parents. However, who do you think pays for the care of these kids? If you say "The state", you're only part correct; it's our tax money that ultimately pays for these kids care, among other things (like prisons!). Harry's comment was spot on; no one forced the mothers to be mothers (except in cases of rape). That said, I don't think sterilization of men would work, but I could be wrong. I think it would just give men more incentive to screw around and treat women like playthings instead of the fellow human beings that they are.
amoiraeOct 8, 2006
Pastafarians are exempt. Good and decent people they are, matey.YARR!
damianaravenOct 25, 2006
The words "reproductive freedom" are a classic example of a noble concept gone horribly awry. Before I make my point and piss people off -- which I'm sure I will -- let me point out that I am staunchly pro-choice in matters of abortion, and an avid supporter of women's rights. I don't think there is a single instance in which a woman should be forced to have a child against her will, but I can think of many good reasons to force a woman not to have children.Americans are obsessed with the notion that procreation is a divine right never to be infringed upon by anyone for any reason. This means that a homeless crack addict should have the inalienable right to bear as many children as biology will allow, and damn the consequences to whatever children are unlucky enough to be conceived under such circumstances. Those eggs shoulda ducked when they saw the sperm coming, so really the impertinent brats brought that misery on themselves, don't you think?All sarcasm aside, does anyone care about the abject misery in which hundreds of thousands of children are living, simply because no one dares to poke the hornet's nest and question the "reproductive freedom" of irresponsible men and women? I'm not talking about mere poverty -- many a happy child has been raised by loving, responsible parent(s) without two nickels to rub together. In fact, I'd bet that lots of families are brought closer together by the lack of material trappings which forces them to (ack!) spend time together instead of retreating to their separate electronic entertainments after a few civil grunts.No, money is not the issue here, although somebody somewhere will bring up the almighty dollar. (Wait and see.) I'm talking about parents who abuse their children in any of the infinite ways this sacred bond can be profaned. Children are routinely beaten, raped, used as slaves and "cash cows" to manipulate the system, and generally made to feel as if they're worthless. Except for the momentary swell of pity from those who hear of their suffering, they basically are. I mean, really -- who gives a s**t? Not the parents, or else they would think suffering to be an early bedtime or loss of TV priveleges. The "system" doesn't care, as evidenced by the appalling state of Child Protective Services and foster care at large. Even the socially conscious only pay lip service, because they're clearly more concerned with the rights of abusers to have as many children as they please. After all, isn't freedom more important than consequence?Back to the horse I'm laboriously beating to death here, I think that reproduction is not a right, but a sacred responsibility that (Let's face the ugly truth, folks!) some people are just not ready for and may never be. Some measure should be taken to curtail the breeding of those who have proven themselves to be bad parents. These measures should not be gender-specific, so you feminists can let out that breath you were planning to howl in rage with. Deadbeat dads should be rounded up and herded to the nearest vasectomy clinic. The procedure will cost the taxpayer much less than even one more child raised by the system. Women with three or more children and no legal means of independently supporting them (with or without a partner's help) should be sterilized. Anyone who abuses a child in an unambiguous way (meaning that more harm was caused than a dirty house and the lack of a new Gameboy) should have their parental rights revoked. All of them.Here's where my idea takes a few hits. "If we allow the government the right to decide who gets to have children, before long they'll start restricting the poor, the stupid, the ugly..." Etc. This is a valid concern, but we shouldn't let the potential for corruption overshadow the protection of the innocent. Should we really disregard perfectly humane and logical concepts because someday, somewhere, somebody might take the idea too far? If that's the case, why do we allow the government to make laws at all?To me, the issue is not about the adults who squabble over freedom and rights. It's about the children who've been afforded neither to appease the idea of the almighty uterus.
sndreamJun 15, 2009
Right, because the last thing the world wants is for two homosexual to have kids with each other. Oh wait......
sndreamJun 15, 2009
Really? I am all for it then.All hail Dogbert.