• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Sterilization - Should it be Mandatory in some cases?

ruby said:
Sterilization is certaintly not a removal of a womens SEXY PARTS.
Its two cuts one on your knicker line,the other just under your belly button where they place two clips or clamps on your fallopion tubes.
Its not a major operation and your usually discharged on the same day!

Just thought i would clear that part of this discussion up
Click to expand...

Thanks. I actually posted that as a joke, but failed to plaster LOLOLOLOLOLOLLO:):):):) everywhere, so it was misinterpreted. Why, why do I ever assume anyone online will get a joke? :)LOL!!!!
 
henrietta said:
Thanks. I actually posted that as a joke, but failed to plaster LOLOLOLOLOLOLLO:):):):) everywhere, so it was misinterpreted. Why, why do I ever assume anyone online will get a joke? :)LOL!!!!
Click to expand...


Sometimes it the way we have worded things,thats why other people dont get the joke
 
ruby said:
Sometimes it the way we have worded things,thats why other people dont get the joke
Click to expand...

Well, of course. But I sometimes suspect an overreliance on emoticons has rendered people unable to do the whole 'in context' analysis of another's words.
 
henrietta said:
There are limited circumstances in which the benfits of granting the state license to execute criminals outweighs the costs, in part because the sheer enormity of the act of killing a citizen places a great burden of justification on the state, and that tends to inhibit the increase of capital punishment. 'Lesser' punishments such as torture (and such as the imposition of sterilization) would be easier to inflict, and much more susceptible to misuse.
Click to expand...
And your point in all of that is....?

It's magical thinking to say that sterilizing a woman will somehow neutralize her ability to abuse children. You're trying to forstall the creation of victims not by preventing the aggressor from acting, but potential victims from being born.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that this sterilization should be the total punishment - she could possibly attend some counciling sessions or something of the like. With that being said, just how would prison reform a child abuser? And plus, by sterilizing her we are effectively cutting off all future abuse - majority of child abusers abuse only their own children, not someone else's. In fact, I have /never/ heard of a case where a woman has abused someone else's child. So, no, I don't think that it is "magical thinking".

Two points - one, the issue isn't the operation itself, it's the force behind it. Any time a government gets free crack at someone's body, that justifies the use of strong language like 'mutilation' and 'torture'.
Click to expand...
I don't think that it does. When having a discussion like this where your main points in the argument are that it is the mutilation and torture of women, then I think that it is pretty important that those terms are used correctly. Without the mutilation and torture part, there really is no essence to your argument. And again, let me emphasise that this is not a "free crack". There are the twelve members of the jury, the judge, and any subsequent juries and judges for appeals and such. It isn't like people are dragged off at random.

Two - Most people find their reproductive potential tremendously important, even if losing it doesn't involve the loss of a major limb.
Click to expand...
Yes, but most people don't abuse their children either, so the reproductive system may not be entirely important to these abusers. Most people find their existance important, but murderers are parted with that. Why should what the criminal thinks play a part in their punishment?

Something can be a moral issue and a feminist issue - feminism isn't trapped in some narrow realm of political rights, forever weighing the exact equality of men and women. Feminism should be out there fighting for the integrity of women's bodies (and men's too, if neccessary) and when you propose that the state get to sterilize women against their will as crime deterence, feminism absolutely becomes part of the situation.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I am more inclined to side with the dictionary regarding exactly what feminism is. This is strictly a moral issue - there is no inequality, and therefore no need for it to become a feminist issue.

Well, of course. But I sometimes suspect an overreliance on emoticons has rendered people unable to do the whole 'in context' analysis of another's words.
Click to expand...
The context in which the "sexy parts" was used made it very difficult to see the "joke". My apologies if I misinterpreted your statement.
 
I see "trouble" written all over this one. What's next? Shall we also do this to people who smoke and have kids? This is one set of dominos I don't want to see get started.:eek:
 
Oh for cryin-out-loud...the whole "slippery slope" analogy is just plain bullshit. That's the last ditch effort of a failing arguement.

"Well, if you let "A" happen then there's really no reason why "B" and "C" are not going to follow at some point."

That's just the point when the debate has to stop.

It's the whole pot leads to harder drugs arguement. Well guess what? Crawling leads to walking. Walking leads to getting older. Getting older leads to sex, smoking, drugs, drinking, crime, rape, murder.....

This is about a society, a jury, a judge and the law being able to take some control over a horribly disturbing situation, and at least put a stop to one aspect of the situation. An ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure type thing.

A woman with 14 kids, who's history is to beat and abuse those kids, should forever lose the right to have another child. To me, the best way to be 100% sure she'll never conceive again is to surgically make that an impossiblity.
 
th_crylaugh.gif



CDA said:
***Wind noise and tumbleweed***
Click to expand...
 
Oh for cryin-out-loud...the whole "slippery slope" analogy is just plain bullshit. That's the last ditch effort of a failing arguement.
Click to expand...

Predicting what all results if an action would be undertaken isn't always a tenuous "slippery slope" argument. Arguing that business will go down if new taxes are implemented is akin to this situation. It isn't too far-fetched and often is the result of such actions. Likewise, predictions as to what will happen are widely used regarding every topic up for debate.
 
Yes, and predicting that there is a real, and impenetrable wall at the speed of sound did not stop mankind from proving that theory wrong.

Is it better to protect the victims and/or the potential victims, or is it better to protect the person who committed the crimes in the first place?

Victims rights, or criminals rights?

I'd prefer to error on the side of the victims.

In this case I'd rather protect the children, than the mother.

Gee, I'm so horrible aren't I? :rolleyes:
 
Is it better to protect the victims and/or the potential victims, or is it better to protect the person who committed the crimes in the first place?

Victims rights, or criminals rights?

I'd prefer to error on the side of the victims.

In this case I'd rather protect the children, than the mother.

Gee, I'm so horrible aren't I? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I totally understand Moto. Sterilization is a lesser "mistake" than say, allowing a child to be born and having it suffer at the hands of a despotic mother whose only reason for having children is due to her biology. In that regard, you're right. I'm worried about government abuse due to the fact that if something can be screwed up, it's usually done so by the government, which is an expert at it. In one of our state papers(we have two of 'em!) they had a series about a man who was an odd duck, but for some reason, spent over forty years in the state mental hospital. They used electro-shock on him repeatedly and sterilized him. The state now pays him a pension and takes care of him and has admitted wrong doing-though little good that does him now that he's sixty some years old and can't have children, let alone enjoy the fruits of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top