Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution

[conuly]

Do NOT read the comments. You can't leave a reply anyway, as they're closed.

Comments

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

I did read a few of the comments, and some of them were not all that off the wall. I was particularly interested in the one pointing out that this is not just a Southern thing, but took place, and still takes place, all over the United States. The only difference is that it is no longer officially legislated.

Someone also brought up clitoridectomies. I would like to see more people talking about that. Most people think that's just in Africa and Third World countries.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

The large majority of the comments were anti-'eugenics', and also rather hysterical and Godwinizing. Further down the string there were more tolerant comments, and better written.

I didn't see anyone mention that in Margaret Sanger's time, VOLUNTARY birth control was illegal!

[conuly]

The ones that weren't making wild accusations of eugenics against planned parenthood today were explicitly pro-eugenics. Ick.

While abuses and overreaches happened...

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Trouble is, the alternative is turning out to be fairly icky.

The family line of the woman I worked with as a caregiver is one case study I'm thinking of--the young woman is 29 and "has been fixed" in her words. (She likes this because it means she doesn't need to use birth control in her frequent, ill-advised, impulsive liaisons. Caregivers try to discourage this but she says they are just trying to "spoil her fun," not protecting her. D:) She is on state support, 24-7 caregivers because she can't tell time, count money or remember to wipe herself after using the toilet. Her mother is also "special needs"...state support, part-time caregivers, etc.

What, exactly, was achieved with the mother having a daughter? The daughter was in foster care from a young age because her mother can't reliably care for herself.

I don't have an answer, but I can see why eugenics proponents get there.

Re: While abuses and overreaches happened...

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Yes. Just because some people took the idea of 'eugenics' too far in some ways (or used it as an excuse for something politically expedient), doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the basic idea of breeding out serious inherited conditions. Even if a condition like you describe is not inherited through DNA but develops through parental neglect, still it's worth breaking the cycle.

The people claiming reparations now, might have been worse off if they had had multiple offspring -- and so would the people having to care for the offspring lifetime 24/7.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I did read all the comments, and they're not all off-the-wall.

I do agree that the State needs to cough up some reparation to people who had their reproductive choice taken away without their consent, just to emphasize the fact that the State does NOT have the right to do that, and will not be allowed to get away with it.

In truth, I would like to see a Constitutional amendment declaring the inalienable right of an individual to sovereignity over his or her own body. This would cover a lot of things: a person's right to have sex with or marry any other consenting adult; to have children or not; to take drugs or seek alternative health care as one chooses; to be protected against forced drugging, involuntary commitment and other detention without due process, and the use of torture and restraint.

However, I would also like to see nice clean clinics all over the world, paying $100 (or the local equivalent) to every person 18 or over who walks in (alone) and signs up for a vasectomy or Essure: no questions asked, procedure is permanent, patient waives all right to sue later for any reason: take it or leave it.

Overpopulation is the real root of all our troubles on this planet. Seven billion of us now, and if we don't reduce that number by fair and humane means, the Four Horsemen of Human Evolution will be along presently to do the job, as they have always done. Very stupid to let that happen: the incalculable suffering, the destruction, waste and loss of both natural resources and the fruits of human endeavor, the irreplaceable loss of genes from our gene pool.

People have no idea how important it is for us as a species to maintain our genetic diversity; how fragile it actually is: any two different breeds of dog are genetically more different than any two humans. From a eugenic point of view, the very best thing we could do for ourselves would be for women to have no more than two children apiece, but to have them by men as genetically different from themselves as possible, and preferably not the same father for both children. That would stir around the gene pool so as to preserve as much of it as possible while our population dwindled. Unfortunately, people in general are unlikely to go for it.

It's as wrong to forbid people to have children, as it is to force them to have them. However, a lot fewer children per generation is essential. Therefore, I say cut to the chase; just offer people cash up front to not breed, and let them choose for themselves.

[conuly]

I only read the top few (which isn't necessarily the first, I think I have it set to show me recent comments first) and they all sucked.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Or for others, a lower amount for some method such as an IUD, which could be removed if she changes her mind. Just making pregnancy a conscious decision that requires a little bit of planning would make a big difference.

Actually Brazil had quite a big effect not by paying women to be sterilized, but just by letting it be free and easy (obsteticians were including it as part of delivery if requested). BC pills weren't free, but they were non-prescription and pretty cheap.