digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Official in S.C.: Sterilize Bad Parents

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.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • chrisw357, on 10/12/2007, -8/+60As 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¢
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -14/+52No, they should NOT be sterilized. HOWEVER, if ANYONE goes on public assistance, they SHOULD be required to undergo some sort of semi-permanent birth control, to be determined between them and their doctor. IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, whatever they and their doctor deems fit.

      If they can't afford the children they already have, they should NOT have the option of forcing me to pay for even more of their (almost exculsively) illegimate children.

      Want more kids? Great! Get off of public assistance!

    • Lasker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6It's the questoin of maximizing long-term human happiness (pro-sterilization) and our constitutional rights (anti-sterilization).
    • jhaitas, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24$0.02 or 2¢... take your pick
      it's not .02¢
    • punchingjudy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14"Been around the world
      And found that only stupid people are breeding
      Cretans cloning and feeding
      And I don't even own a TV..."
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Hey genius, please explain to me the logic behind mutilating someone's body to prevent them from reproducing in order to perform punishment for the crimes of those who were born years earlier.
    • Four20, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I say no. One couple's parenting opinions differs from another. And I sure as hell don't want some conservative republican telling me what and what not to teach my OWN kids.
    • DM05, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17And who is going to determine what are good moral and ethical values? What I may consider good moral and ethical values to teach my children, you might consider abhorrent, or vice versa. Your idea is utterly flawed, and overly stupid. There are no such things such as absolute moral and ethical values, just cultural and societal based boundaries. Anyone that believes that they need to impose their own sense of morals and ethics on those around them is a ***** fascist.
    • Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I 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...
    • tsteele93, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2This is a comment made by a CITY COUNCILMAN. How is this news? It is like if you posted a digg story and said tsteele93 said bad parents should be sterilized. WHO CARES? He is a nobody. - The Charleston Councilman, not me! :-)
    • rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How about we simply not have transfer programs like public assistance, no federal income tax, and treat our citizens like they actually run the country. Wow, an incredible idea, did anyone ever think of this? Wait, the founding fathers? What you say? Small government, a people run democratic republic, naw, can't be? Sure enough, look up the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, they can shed some light on what we are supposed to be following here.

      By the way, if ANY government official starts talking about sterilizing the population, no matter who it is, be very scared. I doubt he was being serious here though.
    • captjc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@tjhaitas
      "it's not .02¢"

      Maybe you can afford $.02 but not everyone is an intellectual fat-cat like you.
      Maybe all they could afford is 2% of a cent. Did you ever think of that? Or maybe their opinions are heavily discounted.

      my 1¢ - Now on special. Passing the savings on to you!
    • jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ 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.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1U.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).
  • P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10I don't care how you twist or turn this, but NO-ONE should have the right to do anything irreversable to anyone's body. Be it the death penalty or the subject of the posted article.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Generally, I too am against the death penalty, but only if we completely redesigned the current system of incarceration for the worst elements of our soceity. Such as, if someone is convicted of a murder which is currently eligible for capital punishment, make their prison sentence hard. Really hard. We can set up two different prisons, one in the desert in NM or AZ, the other north of the Arctic circle in AK, and give them hand tools, and some seed. Let them farm. Let them eat exactly what they farm. Let their existence be truly difficult for the rest of their lives.

      If our prisons for the worst of the worst were like that (child molesters, rapists, murderers) then I would be all for the repeal of the death penalty. But not until.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@theblooms

      It worked well before, until they decided it was a country and stopped letting criminals move in.
    • TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7As a parent, I think sterilization would be an acceptable solution only if it can be reversed without major surgery. People fall on hard times during their life, but that doesn't mean they'll always be that way. What if it's not reversable, they get sterilized, only to move on to being a responsible member of society but not being able to have children?
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually twice. Along with Austraila, the present State of Georgia was a penal colony as well, if I remember correctly. Only problem with those instances, is debtors were put into prison, which is wrong.

    • captjc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@theblooms

      The thing is, would that really work? Punishment is not really a deterrent for people who commit violent crimes. The current system only reinforces that crime is bad. That value is (should be) instilled at an early age anyway. Harsher punishment would not really do much to prevent violent crimes.

      If someone is to willingly commit a crime. They are probably going to do it whether or not there is a harsh punishment. They will just try harder to not get caught.

      If it is a crime of passion, it is essentially a temporary insanity wherein punishment is farthest from their mind.

      If they have a compulsion to commit a crime (eg, a serial killer), they have severe psychological issues and the thought of punishment will not stop them anyway.

      While it may seem like a good idea and while the public may feel better that the criminals are getting what they deserve, it probably won't be much of a deterrent in practice.
  • chrisw357, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"P5ycHo", I wasn't trying to twist and turn anything. I was simply commenting on how I feel about the issue of parenting. I'm not a parent and I can't pretend to know how it's like, but I consider "theblooms" comment to be a good compromise between the two extremes of sterilization versus slap-on-the-hand. I feel that, as a nation, we've taken the "it takes a village..." idea a bit too far. It all starts with the parents and the time and attention they spend on their kids.
  • geuisteses, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm on board. In fact, my mom did a smart thing and self-selected to be sterilized. 3 kids over a 10 year span. "I'm done." She then went on from the age of 33 to get her bachelor's and master's degrees to get caught up. She didn't have any more spawn to hold her down. (counting myself as spawn #2).
  • devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I think it's unethical for us to determine anyone's basic rights like that. There should be incentives for doing the right thing, but no punishment for having children. They do this kind of thing in China and I don't think we want to follow in their footsteps. As angry as I am about bad parents and people leeching on the government, we should all be taking the high road and making it possible for them to do so without harming us or their children.
    • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I think it's unethical to have children by accident and then let them roam the neighborhood while you're strung out on meth.
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15You should probably sterilize the kids while you're at it.

    I'm kind of kidding. But not really.
  • Lane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3a real life darwin award fantastic!
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2while i agree many people should not breed, i would find this hard to pass the constition test. Yeah we casterate sexual offenders now. But i guess first you would have to make it a crime to raise bad kids, because you cant steralize people who are associated to people who broke the law.and you would have to be careful in the def of a "bad parrent". and isnt it a bit too late after they already have kids.. i mean these kids were teens, do you really think the parents are going to have more?

    it would be easier and more legal just to make the parents somewhat responsible for crimes by their kids

    • illynova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3... we castrate sexual offenders? Since when?
    • Lilitou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ilynova: Chemical castration of sex offenders is approved in some states in the US. It's temporary, to my knowledge. I believe full function returns when the hormones are stopped.
    • KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think it's child molesters only, and only when they give consent so as to get out of prison more quickly. No the effects are not temporary.
    • Lilitou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@KCorax, though some states seem to have passed laws allowing forcible castration for repeat offenders, I don't know if they remained on the books. It seems to be universally voluntary for at least first time offenders. If the effects were not temporary, however, I don't see why they'd have to undergo the treatment weekly, which a quick Googling assures me that they do, at least for the injection method.
  • protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this was Dogbert's Idea First
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I think they should sterilize the parents of the losers in American Idol, with a wooden bat on national tv.

    It would give people a reason to watch the show.
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Also, that recent book called Freakonomics has some fascinating (but understandably controversial) information about how abortion legalized in Roe v. Wade lead to a massive drop in crime about twenty years later. It was because of (allegedly) the socioeconomic statistics associated with underpriveleged youth. In frank terms, kids who never had a chance anyway were kept out of the system and therefore wouldn't commit any crime. Whether or not you approve of abortion, I recommend checking out the book, although this study is only one chapter out of it.
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yup, great book. And he layed out the evidence of that very well.

      We don't need to be sterilizing people (I mean come on, isn't that how the Nazis started?), but we can make family planning resources as available as possible. I say make it so that even the biggest idiots can at least easilly get a depo shot every 6 months. Put a Planned Parenthood on every block and hand out flyers in trailer parks. :D
  • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I second that.
  • macweirdo42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I can't deny the appeal of sterilizing certain segments of the population. The problem I have with it is that I don't believe anyone is in any position to make that kind of judgement call. If it could be done in such a way that I knew it was fair and that it was the right thing, I would honestly have no problem with it, but the truth is, realistically speaking, I will never have that peace of mind.
  • dnaspydir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4see unfortunately, once someone becomes a "bad parent" the damage is done. how about making the world a better place to raise children. how about REALLY leaving no child behind.

    maybe it's just me...
  • bpinard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

    Read it.
  • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Fire them into the Sun.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is a little like the death penalty, punishing someone for doing something irresponsible, illegal, immoral, or unethical. In fact, if you support the death penalty, you forfeit your right to even weigh in on this argument.

    I think they should have their children taken away and then be forced to undergo seasonal depo-provera shots. 3-month birth control, it can be phased out without permanent damage, no harm done. If we chemically castrate sex-offenders, there's nothing stopping people from chemically defertilizing parental offenders.

    On the other hand, I disagree with the whole idea of sterilizing poor people. Poor people are a larger strain on social services than rich people, but that is only because we offer so few social services in the first place.
    • concertina, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ya know ... I partially agree with you, in that I don't think it is moral or ethical to force permanent medical decisions on individuals. But I disagree with your solution.

      Many women simply can't take birth control hormones; women with a history of high blood pressure or blood clots are at the top of this list. And because high blood pressure is well correllated with obesity, and because obsesity is also well-correlated with low income, and since I suspect most of the parents who would be charged with such crimes would suffer from low income, a large number of women would be simply unable to undergo depo treatments without serious risk of stroke.

      I definitely agree that enforced sterilization is worse, though; hysterectomies are surgically dangerous and invasive. Vasectomies are as well, to a lesser extent. Can we as a society really force people to undergo surgery where they stand a decent chance of dying on the operating table for dubious societal benefit?

      I think the only real solution is pervasive, free birth control, in whatever form is necessary as a public service: condoms, diaphrams, hormone shots, hormone pills, intrauterine rings, etc. This will be a far less expensive option in the long term than caring for unwanted children, or jailing children raised by neglectful parents. Birth control is cheap. Children are expensive. And society will pay the cost, one way or another.
  • Lilitou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I'm particularly fond of the way he only suggests sterilizing mothers. How about the men who have 6 kids with 5 different women and don't stick around to raise any of them?

    That said, while I frequently say similar things, I don't actually believe in forced sterilization. I would approve of the state taking away more people's kids, though. Especially if they obviously don't understand the concept of family planning when they can't handle the kids they've got.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Fathers usually have no custody rights, have to pay the babymomma "child support" (a.k.a. new boyfriend money), and lose their house and car....sometimes the dog too.
      Yet when it comes to sterilization, things all of a sudden need to be fair?

      Your assertion does hold true in the housing projects though. I agree with you there, but no one is forcing the "ladies" to open their legs to so many of these guys either.
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"but no one is forcing the "ladies" to open their legs to so many of these guys either."

      Thats wrong, how else are they gonna score the money for more blow?
    • chrisw357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Lillitou

      I 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.
  • thedazellama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7IF THEY ALREADY HAVE KIDS, WHAT GOOD IS STERILIZING THEM GOING TO DO? THEY'VE ALREADY REPRODUCED.
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Because most of them breed like rabbits.

      I am all for doing it to the existing kids as well.
  • BehnoodMarvazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Damn it! Your mom should have closed her legs!
  • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yeah, and politicians that can't govern properly should be lobotomized!

    The greedy should have all their possessions taken away... the ugly should be forced to have plastic surgery...anything else to fix since apparently were all sick and think we know everything.

    Get real, nature gave people (the stupid, selfish, greedy, and just plain ignorant) the right to procreate. Fix it on the back-end (create a better community that educates and actually helps the sick) not the front-end you selfish bastards!

    Why take the time to help others when you can just chop off their ability to have a family history. I bet you people that are eager to sterilize others don't do a damn thing to actually help others in yours or your neighboring communities.

    • qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nature 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.
    • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0/quote/ 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./quote/

      If this were really true then the world would currently be filled with nothing but people that caused 'damage'. And don't say we are living in this world cause that's just BS, sure we live in a time when there are lots of bad people but exponential growth is just hogwash.

      /quote/ we will be doing a service to our overpopulated planet./quote/
      Leave if you don't like it ;)
  • moxley, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Why (in the current political climate) am I not surprised to hear some idiot advocating a practice undertaken by the Nazis?

    ...but then again, this tool is just some city council member from Charleston Sc. Is this really news?

    I guess it is when your news department is looking for anything sensationalistic to distract the masses.
  • jwxa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Ok. So, with this logic -- those in positions of power may as well...

    *sterilize those who cannot drive well
    *sterilize people for being rude
    *sterilize people who do not like the same food as they
    *sterilize those that decide not to vote
    *sterilize the grunge heads, puck rockers, and emo pukes
    *sterilize people allergic to dogs
    *sterilize the "adult children" of alcoholics (just in case -- preventive medicine is best after all)
    *sterilize lawyers (why just insult them with bad humor?)
    *sterilize those who smack their lips while chewing
    *sterilize the freak upstairs that obsessively plays the same song over and over again for 70 minutes per day while pacing back and forth in a trance
    *sterilize fools that rush in

    Unfortunately, bad logic wins the popular vote lately in our United States.

    ick.






  • jofer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm suprised no one's mentioned the 1st Amendment here... Freedom of religion, anyone?

    I'm no lawyer---let alone a supreme court justice---but beyond being immoral, I believe mandantory birth control would be unconstitional, as it would violate the basic principles of several religions... (Catholicism being the most obvious example.)
  • Javali, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It sounds like a good idea since it is often that the worst parents have the most kids. The problem that I have with it is: Where do you draw the line? (I guess that's what jwxa above is saying). How do you define a bad parent? Not as easy and perhaps too arbitrary.
    Our current public assistance system actually promotes the inverse of this - more kids, more money. How f@#ked-up is that?
  • upstater1369, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I didn't have time to read all the comments before stating posting mine. Everybody should be sterilized the day they are born. Sorry, but that's what needs to be done. Building a better society to deal with these kids would be great. But let's get real that isn't going to happen.
  • Shalabi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Don't sterilize them, but take their children and put them in animal cages for adoption.
  • milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is something that I could never agree with.

    If your for choice on abortion how can you than want the same aspect of a person to be legislated. If you are pro life than this would still be a tough one.

    Taking away a womans right to give birth, and a mans right to inseminate is a horrible thing, placing restrictions on one of our most basics goals in life is disgusting to me.

    I can understand the benifits of it, but if someone is a bad parent that doesn't mean they will always be. Thats why we dont sentence all criminals to death for everything.

    This is something I might expect to hear in the 10th century but not today, Im disgusted.
  • gd007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1or forfeit the child tax credit!
  • jimmiejaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You need a drivers licence.
    You need a dog(pet in some places) licence.
    You need a marrage licence.
    But you can pop bastard after bastard out with no licence.

    Anyone see a slight problem?

    Yup, a dog licence, but not one for kids...
    • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How many children will your license allow?
      What if my income is low and I can't afford 3 will I be limited to 2 until I can afford 3?
      Will I have to carry my child license with me to prove I'm allowed to have children if asked?
      If I can't get a license and I get someone pregnant will she forced to abort the child?
      Will I only be allowed to have children until a certain age?
      Will I have to renew my license? If so what happens to my children if I fail to pass the second, third, or x time?

      A license to have children is no solution.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1OMFG this is teh dumbest ***** I've heard. Its ridiculious for parents to have licenses that require them to have children. Thats our ***** right to have chiuldren to reproduce it. I say this because the first people to be sterilized willl be ethnic minorities. Mainly African Americans. This just shows how the US is becoming more and more fascist.
  • johnnydanger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1DRTFA, but I'm in total agreement with that official. Awful parenting is an awful drag on society, yet it's something that society can DO SOMETHING ABOUT.

  • ka2err, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is an excellent idea.

    If you need some expertise in forced sterilization, come over to Germany, we do to this to some our unwanted people.
    Well, to be exact: We did. Some decades ago.
    When we had torture, secret prisons, warrant-less surveillance, concentration camps etc...
    But since these things are fashionable again, you might want to have a look at our archives.

    k2r
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Where does it end? People aren't Christians - sterilize 'em. People don't like the Dallas Cowboys - sterilize 'em. People are homosexual - sterilize 'em.

    This is the United States of America. Supposedly, it is the greatest country in the world for our freedoms. But, a certain element thinks they know better for everyone else. It crosses all political boundaries. Republicans and as guilty as Democrats or Libertarians or Pastafarians.
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pastafarians are exempt. Good and decent people they are, matey.

      YARR!
  • gjaxson01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Adolf Hitler anybody?
  • sillywampa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The government should not have authority over a person's body simply because their child committed a crime. Ever heard of "those rebellious years" when teenagers decide to start disobeying their parents and get into trouble. I've known kids raised in wealthy families, good parents who were able to hide their mischevious lifestyles from their parents. When a child reaches a certain age, the parent can't always be held responsible for everything they do. Forceful sterilization sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. It just sounds so wrong.
  • adam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Woohoo! This happened in my hometown. If you saw the people that live in North Charleston,SC you'd agree with this article.
    • qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ya, we know... like you said... YOUR hometown.... ;)
  • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I wonder how humanity made it this far without sterilization? /sarcasm/
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We had wild animals to eat and winters to freeze the stupid ones for a long, long time. The smart ones killed the animals and built heaters for everyone, now the tards get to breed like rabbits because they are to stupid to buy a rubber or pull out.

      Time for the smart ones to act again.
    • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, 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.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So does this mean you want to sterilise Barbara Bush? Can we do so retroactively?
  • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why are the people being dugg down those who are against sterilization. ARe oyu guys using oyur heads? This is the most horrific thing I've heard.

    According to white americans ethnic minorities are a drag to society thus you want us to be sterialized. WEll I'm against it.
    • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with you.

      People that want to sterilize are thinking lazily and selfishly. They don't want to actually work or make an investment to help solve the problem they just want to take the quick way out no matter how horrific and at what cost to other humans.

      Education and helping people get out of poverty are the keys to solving this problem in a civilized way.
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's a thought: Free government subsidized sterilization to any adult who wants it.

    Beyond that, it's almost standard practice to take children away from abusive or neglectful parents. Forced sterilization is taking it just a bit too far. If the government wanted to sterilize me, for example, I think I'd start carrying a gun for self defense.
  • ElFredo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2USA, The Land of Freedom, 1776 - 2006 . RIP
  • dasunst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As much as bad parents deserve that kind of treatment, it is still a violation of rights because people have the right to refuse medical treatment provided they are competent. Wait a sec... do they even count as competent people?!

    The comments that council member made will certainly go well with the "yuppie" and "crackhead" parents.
  • carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While 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...
    • rlh68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll repeat my previous post to the 'child license' argument...

      How many children will your license allow?
      What if my income is low and I can't afford 3 will I be limited to 2 until I can afford 3?
      Will I have to carry my child license with me to prove I'm allowed to have children if asked?
      If I can't get a license and I get someone pregnant will she forced to abort the child?
      Will I only be allowed to have children until a certain age?
      Will I have to renew my license? If so what happens to my children if I fail to pass the second, third, or x time?

      A license to have children is no solution. Sterilization is definitely no solution.
  • JesseJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yes I agree, and City Councils with ideas like this should be lobotomized.
  • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From what I understand they were basically doing this untill 1972, well sterilizing undesirables... :(

    Even though it seems like a good idea on paper, you nor anyone has that right. And what are the rules for a good parent? Than there are cultural differences within the United States that influnce parenting.. :/ Its not cut and dried..

    But I would like to see all females and males getting assistance getting the shot to prevent pregancy.. :/
  • DamianaRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The 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 *****? 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.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.